Artikel

2 September 2014

Pendapat

Pendapat Anda?

The Sedition Act is now clearly used as an instrument of gross injustice and a weapon of mass oppression. The recent spate of arbitrary arrests and selective prosecution of Pakatan Rakyat leadersrepresents a gross affront to the democratic process and signifies a breakdown in the rule of law.

The dragnet
To date, five Members of Parliament and two State Assemblymen as well as several other Pakatan leaders have been prosecuted. It is a long list whichis growing even longer with no one being spared except UMNO leaders and their right-wing racist cohorts.

They are PKR MP for Pandan Rafizi Ramli, PKR MP for Padang Serai N Surendran, PKR Youth chiefand Deputy Selangor State Assembly Speaker Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad, DAP MP for Seputeh Teresa Kok, PKR MP for Batu Tian Chua, PAS MP for Shah Alam Khalid Samad, and DAP Seri Delima assemblyman R.S.N. Rayer and former Perak MP and Changkat Jering assemblyman Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin.

Today, this wave of repression has taken on the hue of an outrageous farce with the prosecution of law professor Azmi Sharom for expressing his academic opinion on the Selangor MB crisis. Incidentally, though it was not a view that was pro-UMNO, neither was it pro-PKR in any way. But as a firm believer in academic freedom, I maintain that Azmi has every right to express his views.

Hijacking democracy and the electoral process
If the prosecutions are successful, it is likely that at least six parliamentary by-elections and three state assembly by-elections will ensue, if we include myown impending Federal Court appeal which, going by the current state of the judiciary, holds not much promise that justice will prevail.

What we are seeing is thus a blatant and shameless attempt by Najib to hijack democracy by having duly elected law makers from Pakatan to be stripped of their democratic entitlements and disqualified from contesting in the subsequent by-elections. This will be a grave perversion of justice via the back door of the Attorney-General’s chambers.

Yesterday, the dragnet of repression was extended to haul in members of civil society with the police arresting 156 Penang Voluntary Patrol Unit (PPS) members – essentially citizens who have volunteered to perform their civic responsibilities to keep the peace. There is also the audacious threat by the Home Minister to take action against PAS’s Unit Amal which has been for years recognised by the people as effective in crowd control during opposition rallies apart from its other humanitarian and welfare work.

The statement from the Prime Minister’s Office that the Sedition Act will be repealed is not only hollow but a gross lie considering the spate of prosecutions being carried. How can such flagrant use of an archaic and repressive law convince anyone that the government is serious about legislative reform?

On the contrary, it nails the lie to the elaborate game of deception played by Najib when in July 2012, he proclaimed with much fanfare and PR blitz, his National Transformation Plan.

By holding out such a big promise to the people of making Malaysia the “best democracy in the world”, while in reality imposing a new reign of Executiveterror, Najib has therefore perpetrated a gross and reckless fraud on the people.

The volley ball blame game being played by the Home Ministry in tossing the blame on the Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail for this heightened pace of prosecutions is futile because at the end of the day,all are culpable in this despicable enterprise as they are part and parcel of the Executive.

Attack on justice and freedom
In a fully functioning democracy, such abuse of power by the Executive can and will be checked by the judiciary by summary dismissal of the chargesfor they are not just frivolous and an abuse of legal process but constitute a general affront to our basic sense of justice and freedom.

These are attacks on the very foundation of our constitution which guarantees freedom from arbitrary arrests and prosecution. They are direct assaults on the democratic process which renders elected representatives to be duty-bound to speak for the people against injustice and abuse of power.

The question is: Do we have a strong, independent and vibrant judiciary that believes that politicians and their appointees who hold high executive office must act according to the rule of law, and not the rule of political expediency?

Do we have the requisite number of judges who will judge without fear or favour according to the criterion of justice? Will they have the moral courage and conviction to send a clear message that they will not be party to the Executive’s attempt to pervert the course of justice and violate the liberties and rights of the people as enshrined in the Constitution?

A government must not only administer efficiently though in this regard the Najib government has failed miserably. But even more profound is the moral obligation to administer justly.

Racist speeches by UMNO ministers and MPs, given full media coverage by UMNO’s propaganda network machine, are on the uptake. Extreme right-wing groups and countless other racist organizations continue to spread and incite communal hatred.

But what does it say for justice and democracy whenthese racists and purveyors of religious extremism get off scot free while those who speak the truth for the sake of a better, more harmonious Malaysia are treated as criminals?

Conclusion
Merdeka Day has just come and gone and two days ago the Malaysian people were treated to a grand show to mark our day of independence. It is supposed to be a celebration from the yoke of colonialism for our new found freedoms and rights.

Indeed, what a tragic irony it is that we are in fact witnessing the unbridled use of the Sedition Act that is nothing but a relic of this era of colonialism. TrueMerdeka means that we must reject this law, not use it as what the Najib government is doing, with renewed vigour and determination as an instrument of injustice and a weapon of mass oppression.

Anwar Ibrahim
Opposition leader
2 September 2014

15 January 2014

Pendapat

Pendapat Anda?

Yahoo News

The Kuala Lumpur High Court has allowed the Bar Council’s objection against admitting former police officer Jude Blacious Pereira as an advocate and solicitor.

He was the main police investigator in the Sodomy II trial against Anwar Ibrahim, who was later acquitted.

Pereira had applied to practise in Ipoh where he had completed his chambering after retiring from the police force with the rank of superintendent.

Lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar ( left ) and Pavendeep Singh said the Bar Council objected to his petition because he was found “not to be a credible witness” during a human rights hearing in a case involving the arrest of five lawyers in Kuala Lumpur who were assisting those arrested during a candlelight vigil.

The Suhakam inquiry that found Pereira not a credible witness was chaired by then commissioner Muhammad Shafee Abdullah.

The human rights case involved the Brickfields police arresting the five lawyers – Puspawati Rosman, Fadiah Nadwa Fikri, Murnie Hidayah Anuar, Ravinder Singh Dhalliwal and Syuhaini Safwan ? for allegedly failing to disperse following a directive issued by then district police chief Wan Abdul Bari Wan Abdul Khalid.

The Suhakam inquiry found that the police had acted mala fide and that Wan Bari and Pereira clearly violated human rights.

Justice Zaleha Yusof agreed with the Bar Council that Pereira is “not a fit and proper person to be admitted as a lawyer to practice in the High Court of Malaya”.

“The court also makes consequential order for Pereira’s petition (for admission) to be struck out,” she said.

Pereira or his lawyer were not present to listen to the judgment as the order was made before Justice Zaleha in chambers.

Bar has right to object

Commenting on the matter, Malik said the Bar Council has the right and is duty-bound to object to anyone from gaining admission to practice as lawyers.

“The court’s duty in situations like these is to ensure that the admission of the petitioner’s concern would not have an adverse impact on the profession and community.

“The Suhakam inquiry panel concluded that Pereira was not a credible witness.

“Any court in Malaysia, Australia or New Zealand hold that a lawyer must have high standards of honesty and integrity,” he added.

Pereira had filed his petition for admission on July 23, 2012 and was short-called under Sections 36(2) (a) and (b) of the Legal Profession Act 1976.

However, he failed in the Ethics and Professional Standards course examination organised by the Bar Council on March 13 and 14 last year.

The Bar Council informed Pereira that it would be objecting his admission as an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya on the ground that he was not fit for admission to the Bar.

Under Section 11 (1) of the LPA, a qualified person must be of good character but the Bar Council said Pereira being the second highest ranking police officer on duty at Brickfields was involved in the arrest of the five and cited the Suhakam inquiry report.

“We find the evidence of Pereira totally unsatisfactory. He was either consciously not telling the truth or suffered from a serious bout of loss of memory,” the inquiry stated in its
finding.

The Bar Council had held an extraordinary general meeting to condemn the arrest of the five lawyers in May 2009.

15 January 2014

Pendapat

Pendapat Anda?

PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision which had ruled earlier that two articles published by Utusan Malaysia (M) Sdn Bhd were defamatory and related to opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s interview with BBC on homosexual laws, two years ago.

A three-member panel headed by justice Zaharah Ibrahim ruled that there was no merit in the appellant’s appeal after perusing the ground of judgement and note of the proceedings of the High Court.
The panel ordered cost of RM25,000 to be paid to the respondent.

The court also dismissed the application by UMNO to intervene in the appeal. However, no cost was ordered.

The other two panel members were justice Mah Weng Kwai and K. Anantham.

Later, counsel Abu Bakar As-Sidek told reporters that UMNO made the application over the issue whether the party had influence over editorial policy of the daily.

The High Court last year ruled that the defendants Utusan Melayu (Malaysia) Bhd and its chief editor, Datuk Abdul Aziz Ishak, failed to establish all the statutory defenses, namely justification, fair comment and qualified privilege.

On Jan 10 2012, Anwar filed a defamation suit seeking RM50mil in damages alleging the defendants had published the two articles in the Utusan Malaysia newspaper, on Jan 17, 2012, in relation to his BBC interview.

He had contended that the words implied he was unfit to hold public office and a Muslim leader who held views inconsistent with the teachings of Islam.

During today’s appeal, Anwar was represented by lawyer R. Sivarasa, while Firuz Hussein Ahmad Jamaluddin appeared for Utusan.

– Bernama

14 September 2013

Pendapat

Pendapat Anda?

Press Advisory:

13 September 2013 (Bangkok, Thailand) -­- Justice Elizabeth Evatt AC, the first female judge to be appointed to an Australian Federal Court, a former member of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, and a commissioner of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), will be observing the hearing of the appeal of Anwar Ibrahim’s case from 17 to 18 September 2013 at the Court of Appeal in Putrajaya. The ICJ, a global organization based in Geneva, Switzerland, is composed of judges and lawyers who aim to promote and protect human rights through the rule of law, by using its unique legal expertise to develop and strengthen national and international justice systems.

Anwar Ibrahim is a Malaysian politician and is currently the leader of the opposition party, Parti Keadilan Rakyat, and the opposition alliance known as Pakatan Rakyat. The appeal hearing that Justice Elizabeth Evatt will be observing emerged from the 2008 charges filed against Anwar Ibrahim immediately after the general elections held that year. He was charged for allegedly committing sodomy, which is a crime under Section 377B of the Penal Code and carries the penalty of up to 20 years of imprisonment and whipping. The High Court acquitted Anwar Ibrahim on 9 January 2012.

This is the second time that Anwar Ibrahim is facing sodomy charges after his dismissal from the Malaysian Cabinet in 1998. In 2004, The ICJ also sent a representative to observe the sodomy trial of Anwar Ibrahim, where the Federal Court overturned the High Court decision to convict him. The ICJ called the Federal Court’s ruling “a step in the right direction in upholding the rule of law”.

Justice Evatt’s mandate as ICJ’s high-­level observer to the appeal hearing includes monitoring the fairness of the proceedings against Anwar Ibrahim in the light of relevant international standards. These standards include, among others the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of Judges, which set out standards on the independence and impartiality of judges, and the UN Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, which set out standards on the independence of prosecutors. Justice Evatt will also be evaluating whether the prosecution under Section 377B of the Malaysian Penal Code is being used in this case to suppress political dissent, contrary to the right to freedom of expression.

“The right to observe trials stems from the general right to promote and secure the protection and realization of human rights. Trial observation is a key tool in monitoring the respect for human rights and the rule of law. It is an effective method to examine the level of independence and impartiality of a country’s criminal justice system,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s International Legal Adviser on Southeast Asia. “Trial monitoring also serves to promote better compliance with both domestic law and international standards that aim to ensure protection of human rights, including the rights to fair trial and due process.”

For more information, please contact Ms. Emerlynne Gil, International Legal Advisor, tel. no. +662 6198477 ext. 206 or email: [email protected]

[Download original document : Press Advisory_Justice Evatt_Trial Observation_Anwar Ibrahim appeal hearing_13 September 2013.pdf]

1 April 2013

Pendapat

Pendapat Anda?

Malaysia Chronical

The Right Honourable Attorney General had in effect clarified on 26 March 2013, as reported in the media, that he has the discretion to direct the re-opening of investigations into the 2006 murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu.

He is reported to have stated that he would consider the Bar Council’s suggestion to re-open investigations, but only if there is new evidence. Thus, the issue presently is not whether the Attorney General has the discretion to do so, but whether there is sufficient cause for him to do so.

The Malaysian Bar is of the view that the revelations in the public domain by Deepak Jaikishan, the late Balasubramaniam Perumal, and Americk Singh Sidhu provide sufficient cause for the authorities to re-open investigations or to conduct further investigations.

These revelations, for example the events, and persons involved in those events, as narrated by Deepak Jaikishan in relation to the affirmation of a statutory declaration on 4 July 2008 by Balasubramaniam Perumal for the purpose of recanting his first statutory declaration affirmed on 1 July 2008, and the role Deepak had played in the matter, were not evidence that had been earlier revealed. Taken at face value, such revelations may speak to the possible motive for the events that led to the demise of Altantuya Shaariibuu.

Why did they kill her? Revelations from Deepak, Americk show they could have acted on orders

It must be borne in mind that “motive” is not the same as “mens rea”. “Mens rea” refers to whether a person had the intention to commit a crime; whereas “motive” refers to why a person would have committed the crime. “Mens rea” is an essential element in the offence of murder; whereas motive is not.

It is thus possible to establish that a person did kill another, that is, he had the intention to kill and did commit the act, even though one may not understand or know the reason why that person killed another. However, motive may be important in cases where there is doubt as to the “mens rea”, or where there are questions as to whether there may be more people connected with or involved in the crime, and the nature or extent of such connection or involvement.

In the current context, the High Court found the two police officers guilty of having killed Altantuya Shaariibuu, that is, they had intended to kill her and did in fact kill her. The High Court stated: “Whatever his motive was, it is a matter of law that the ‘motive’ although relevant has never been the essential to constitute murder.”

The question as to why they killed her is said by some to have been unsatisfactorily dealt with. The third accused was acquitted by the High Court.

The revelations by Deepak Jaikishan, the late Balasubramaniam Perumal, and Americk Singh Sidhu raise sufficient concern to warrant further investigations by the authorities. Such further investigations may or may not lead to anything new, but we would only know if additional investigations are in fact undertaken.

Christopher Leong

President, Malaysian Bar

17 March 2013

Pendapat

Pendapat Anda?

Malaysia Chronicle

It looks like he noose is closing in on Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak, who has long been suspected of involvement in the sensational Altantuya Shaariibuu murder..

At the annual general meeting of the Malaysian Bar in Kuala Lumpur on Saturday, lawyers were told that prominent colleague Cecil Abraham had admitted to acting on Najib’s instructions to prepare a second statutory declaration (SD2) for the purpose of overturning a first (SD1), which had been prepared by another lawyer.

To Najib’s critics, it is poetic justice that Abraham’s confession was revealed on the very day that the signatory to the document was cremated. P Balasubramaniam, the private investigator who had been enticed into signing the Abraham-prepared document, had died just a day ago of a massive heart attack.

In 2008, Bala had stunned the country when he made public SD1, in which he had linked Najib to the Altantuya murder. That document had been prepared by his lawyer Americk Sidhu.

Within 24 hours, as Bala later revealed, he was given a large sum of money to sign Abraham’s SD2 and then made to flee to Chennai, where he had lived in exile with his family until last month.

“Cecil met me and admitted to drafting the second SD without Bala’s instructions. The instructions came from Najib,” Malaysiakini reported Americk as telling members of the Malaysian Bar at their closed door meeting.

This is murder, don’t hide behind silence

Bala’s role in the Altantuya saga began when he was hired by Najib’s close aide Razak Baginda. His job was protect Baginda and daughter Rowena from Altantuya who had been blackmailing Baginda before she was killed.

In an immediate response, Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo called on Najib to come clean on the matter.

“Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak should respond to the allegation by lawyer Americk Singh Sidhu that the second SD of the late PI Bala was prepared on his instructions,” Gobind said in a statement.

“The Bar Council should also tell us why there has been a delay in the probe into this complaint. The Bar Council is obviously unusually slow in its probe of this matter.

Other Opposition lawmakers joined the call to the PM, who has made matters worse for himself and his party with his refusal to respond.

Americk and Abraham are senior lawyers, well known in the industry, and it would only bolster the public perception that Najib and his wife Rosmah Mansor were somehow tied in to the murder of the 28-year-old Mongolian national.

“Najib has sworn on the Quran in a mosque that he and Rosmah have never known Altantuya. But now everything is being revealed in the Malaysian Bar AGM,” MP for Bukit Gantang Nizar Jamaluddin said on Twitter.”

To dissolve Parliament on Monday?

Altantuya was killed by two of Najib’s former bodyguards in 2006 after she pestered Baginda for what she had told Bala was a US$500,000 commission for the Malaysian government’s purchase of submarines.

At that time Najib was both Deputy Prime Minister as well as Defense Minister and it was he who gave the green light for the navy’s procurement of 2 Scorpene submarines.

Altantuya is believed to have acted as translator for Baginda, who had helped negotiate in the deal with French arms maker DCNS. Baginda was initially charged for abetting in her murder but was controversially acquitted while the two bodyguards were sentenced to hang.

The two men have appealed and their case is due to be heard in June, which Najib’s critics have pointed out would be safely past the date of the country’s 13th general election. The government-controlled press have hinted that Najib would dissolve Parliament on March 25, with voting day sometime in April.

However, there are now red-hot rumors that Najib will dissolve Parliament on Monday, March 18.

The main reasons cited for the change in plan are his mishandling of an intrusion by armed Sulu gunmen onto Malaysian shores, his exacerbation of the ensuing fallout by trying to pin the blame on Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim and Batu MP Tian Chua, plus the renewed focus on the statutory declarations following Bala’s sudden death.

Did not want the truth to get buried

Americk, who had broken the news of Bala’s demise to the press on Friday, said that in revealing to the Bar what had been told to him, he was breaking a promise to Abraham not to tell anyone.

However, Americk said he did so because he did not want to let the trail to the truth behind the Altantuya murder get buried with Bala’s death.

“I informed the AGM after much torment of a sleepless night,” said Americk, who had been visibly been shaken by Bala’s death, describing the 53-year-old investigator as one of the “best Malaysians”. [P.I. Bala’s death: All eyes now swing to SD1 detailing the Najib-Altantuya link]

“I told Bala before he died that Cecil had confessed to it and he was quite happy about it. I told him to let nature takes its course. He agreed with me and I have to continue with this for Balasubramaniam.”

According to Americk, he met Abraham at a restaurant near his office two weeks ago. The meeting was arranged by another lawyer. Americk does not plan to complain about Abraham to the Bar. The act of drafting a second SD to nullify the first is illegal under Malaysian laws.

“Cecil admitted to me that he was the one who drafted the second SD and that he was under Najib’s instructions to do so. Cecil apologised to me for it and I accepted his apology,” repeated Americk.

Sirul’s statement and who ordered the killing?

On Thursday, Americk had detailed out how he and Bala came to draft the SD1 amid accusations from Umno-linked blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin that Bala did so because he had been offered money by Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim. [ NOT BULLSHIT, RPK: Don’t try to distract attention from who ordered Altantuya’s MURDER!]

Americk denied any money was taken from anyone for SD1, which he confirmed Bala had wanted to effect to point out the discrepancies in the government’s investigation of the case. He also accused Raja Petra of trying to confuse the issue so as to deflect attention from the key question in the murder case that till now remains unanswered – who had ordered the killing?

Today, Americk reiterated this point. According to him, it had been clear to them that all along the two bodyguards Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar and Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri were acting under orders.

“If you look at Sirul’s 112 cautioned statements, he categorically had said that they were offered RM50,000 to RM100,000 to get rid of this woman. The question here is who ordered it. Why the chain of command was not brought up in court. We have Musa Safri (Najib’s former aide de camp), their superior officer, but he was never introduced as a witness.

Bala was among those who last saw Altantuya alive. In fact, it was he who confirmed her identity to one of her killers, Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri.

“After talking to Aminah (Altantuya) for about 15 minutes, a red Proton aeroback arrived with a woman and two men. I now know the woman to be Lance Corporal Rohaniza and the men, Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azahar. They were all in plain clothes. Azilah walked towards me while the other two stayed in the car,” Bala wrote in item 29 of his SD1.

“Azilah asked me whether the woman was Aminah and I said ‘Yes’. He then walked off and made a few calls on his handphone. After 10 minutes another vehicle, a blue Proton Saga, driven by a Malay man, passed by slowly. The drivers window had been wound down and the driver was looking at us.” (item 30 in SD1)

“Azilah then informed me they would be taking Aminah away. I informed Aminah they were arresting her. The other two persons then got out of the red Proton and exchanged seats so that Lance Corporal Rohaniza and Aminah were in the back while the two men were in the front. They drove off and that is the last I ever saw of Aminah.” (item 31 in SD1)

Of mortality and guilt: A vindication for Bala

Bala’s body was returned to his family late on Friday night after an autopsy that confirmed cause of death was due to a heart attack. Last rites were performed for him this afternoon.

The 53-year-old had returned to Malaysia last month amid a hero’s welcome for his brave decision to come out and reveal all to the public. However, heart disease does not know how to discriminate and he was forced to interrupt a tell-all tour of the country to seek treatment for 3 clogged arteries a couple of weeks ago.

“Malaysia lost a brave man in the person of P.I. Balasubramaniam. However, those who believe that now the truth will never be known are wrong. Bala has made much information known such as the involvement of Nasir Safa, Musa Safri and Nizam Razak. The public knows who these personalities are. One day, the full truth will be know,” MP for Subang Sivarasa Rasiah had told Malaysia Chronicle.

Indeed, that day of reckoning for Altantuya and also for Bala, whose reputation has been besmirched by accusations that he was a mercenary who ‘sang’ for money from the Opposition, may come much earlier anyone had anticipated.

Mortality and guilt are a potent cocktail. Perhaps in the days that come, more of those involved in what is now clear to see was a massive cover-up to shield Najib and his Umno party will step forward and take their place in history by telling the truth.

Not just for Altantuya, Bala, or the nation but most of all, for themselves and their children.

All eyes on SD1 and SD2: The Najib link

Meanwhile, all eyes are on the SD1 drafted by Americk and SD2 drafted by Abraham. Bala was after all among those who last saw Altantuya alive. In fact, it was he who confirmed her identity to one of her killers, Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri.

In SD1 (scroll below), Bala had detailed Najib’s connection to Altantuya in item 25 as told to him by Baginda. Many parts were corroborated by Altantuya when she spoke to him just hours before she was killed, in item 28:

In items 49, 50, 51, 52, Bala again mentioned Najib.

25. During this discussion and in an attempt to persuade me to continue my employment with him, Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that :-

> He had been introduced to Aminah by Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at a diamond exhibition in Singapore.

> Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak informed Abdul Razak Baginda that he had a sexual relationship with Aminah and that she was susceptible to anal intercourse.

> Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak wanted Abdul Razak Baginda to look after Aminah as he did not want her to harass him since he was now the Deputy Prime Minister.

> Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had all been together at a dinner in Paris.

> Aminah wanted money from him as she felt she was entitled to a USD$500,000.00 commission on a submarine deal she assisted with in Paris.

28. Whist I was talking to Aminah, she informed me of the following :

> That she met Abdul Razak Baginda in Singapore with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

>That she had also met Abdul Razak Baginda and Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at a dinner in Paris.

>That she was promised a sum of USD$500,000.00 as commission for assisting in a submarine deal in Paris.

>That Abdul Razak Baginda had bought her a house in Mongolia but her brother had refinanced it and she needed money to redeem it.

>That her mother was ill and she needed money to pay for her treatment.

>That Abdul Razak Baginda had married her in Korea as her mother is Korean whilst her father was a Mongolian/Chinese mix.

>That if I wouldn’t allow her to see Abdul Razak Baginda, would I be able to arrange for her to see Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.\

STATUTORY DECLARATION (Bala’s first SD or SD1 drafted by Americk Sidhu)

I, Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal (NRIC NO: xxxxxx-xx-6235) a Malaysian Citizen of full age and residing at xxxxx, Selangor do solemly and sincerely declare as follows :-

1. I have been a police officer with the Royal Malaysian Police Force having jointed as a constable in 1981 attached to the Police Field Force. I was then promoted to the rank of lance Corporal and finally resigned from the Police Force in 1998 when I was with the Special Branch.

2. I have been working as a free lance Private Investigator since I left the Police Force.

3. Sometime in June or July 2006, I was employed by Abdul Razak Baginda for a period of 10 days to look after him at his office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang between the hours of 8am to 5pm each working day as apparently he was experiencing disturbances from a third party.

4. I resigned from this job after 2 ½ days as I was not receiving any proper instructions.

5. I was however re-employed by Abdul Razak Baginda on the 05-10-2006 as he had apparently received a harassing phone call from a Chinese man calling himself ASP Tan who had threatened him to pay his debts. I later found out this gentleman was in fact a private investigator called Ang who was employed by a Mongolian woman called Altantuya Shaaribuu.

6. Abdul Razak Baginda was concerned that a person by the name of Altantuya Shaaribuu, a Mongolian woman, was behind this threat and that she would be arriving in Malaysia very soon to try and contact him.

7. Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that he was concerned by this as he had been advised that Altantuya Shaaribuu had been given some powers by a Mongolian ‘bomoh’ and that he could never look her in the face because of this.

8. When I enquired as to who this Mongolian woman was, Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that she was a friend of his who had been introduced to him by a VIP and who asked him to look after her financially.

9. I advised him to lodge a police report concerning the threatening phone call he had received from the Chinese man known as ASP Tan but he refused to do so as he informed me there were some high profile people involved.

10. Abdul Razak Baginda further told me that Altantuya Shaaribuu was a great liar and good in convincing people. She was supposed to have been very demanding financially and that he had even financed a property for her in Mongolia.

11. Abdul Razak Baginda then let me listen to some voice messages on his handphone asking him to pay what was due otherwise he would be harmed and his daughter harassed.

12. I was therefore supposed to protect his daughter Rowena as well.

13. On the 09.10.2006 I received a phone call from Abdul Razak Baginda at about 9.30 am informing me that Altantuya was in his office and he wanted me there immediately. As I was in the midst of a surveillance, I sent my assistant Suras to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office and I followed a little later. Suras managed to control the situation and had persuaded Altantuya and her two friends to leave the premises. However Altantuya left a note written on some Hotel Malaya note paper, in English, asking Abdul Razak Baginda to call her on her handphone (number given) and wrote down her room number as well.

14. Altantuya had introduced herself to Suras as ‘Aminah’ and had informed Suras she was there to see her boyfriend Abdul Razak Baginda.

15. These 3 Mongolian girls however returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang again, the next day at about 12.00 noon. They did not enter the building but again informed Suras that they wanted to meet Aminah’s boyfriend, Abdul Razak Baginda.

16. On the 11.10.2006, Aminah returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office on her own and gave me a note to pass to him, which I did. Abdul Razak Baginda showed me the note which basically asked him to call her urgently.

17. I suggested to Abdul Razak Baginda that perhaps it may be wise to arrange for Aminah to be arrested if she harassed him further, but he declined as he felt she would have to return to Mongolia as soon as her cash ran out.

18. In the meantime I had arranged for Suras to perform surveillance on Hotel Malaya to monitor the movements of these 3 Mongolian girls, but they recognized him. Apparently they become friends with Suras after that and he ended up spending a few nights in their hotel room.

19. When Abdul Razak Baginda discovered Suras was becoming close to Aminah he asked me to pull him out from Hotel Malaya.

20. On the 14.10.2006, Aminah turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house in Damansara Heights when I was not there. Abdul Razak Baginda called me on my handphone to inform me of this so I rushed back to his house. As I arrived, I noticed Aminah outside the front gates shouting “Razak, bastard, come out from the house”. I tried to calm her down but couldn’t so I called the police who arrived in 2 patrol cars. I explained the situation to the police, who took her away to the Brickfields police station.

21. I followed the patrol cars to Brickfields police station in a taxi. I called Abdul Razak Baginda and his lawyer Dirren to lodge a police report but they refused.

22. When I was at the Brickfields police station, Aminah’s own Private Investigator, one Mr. Ang arrived and we had a discussion. I was told to deliver a demand to Abdul Razak Baginda for USD$500,000.00 and 3 tickets to Mongolia, apparently as commission owed to Aminah from a deal in Paris. (more…)

8 March 2013

Pendapat

Pendapat Anda?

Malaysiakini

The father of Saiful Bukhari has apologised to PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim, claiming that his son had been used by irresponsible quarters including an official of the prime minister to defame Anwar in Sodomy II.

“Anwar is innocent and a victim of this slander… as such I apologise to Anwar and his family.

“He and his family have suffered a lot as a result of this slander,” said Azlan Mohd Lazim in a statement issued during a press conference in Kuala Lumpur today.

Anwar was acquitted by the Kuala Lumpur High Court on Jan 9 on charges of sodomising Saiful, who was his political aide, on June 26, 2008 in a condominium in Kuala Lumpur.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers has appealed against the decision and the Court of Appeal will hear the case on July 22.

20 February 2013

Pendapat

Pendapat Anda?

Malaysiakini

That was why he gambled away billions during Bank Negara’s wild speculative days because he could not understand the word ‘cash’.’

Dr M admits contradiction, but denies being untruthful

Anonymous #19098644: Dr Mahathir Mohamad is the natural successor to Joseph Goebbels, the minster of information during the Adolf Hitler government. Goebbels believed that if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.

In his autobiography ‘A Doctor in The House’, Mahathir even said that he had a meeting with Singapore’s second president Benjamin Sheares on a particular date. The Singapore government subsequently refuted it and said it was not possible as Sheares had died before that date.

This is typical Mahathir for you, writing fiction instead of facts. For him, if what he testified under oath is different from the facts, it is not perjury because it is due to different assumptions.

He claimed to have been Malaysian finance minister but does not know the difference between cash price, special price and contract price.

His legacy is alive today in the son of MCA chief Chua Soi Lek who is supposedly an accountant but doesn’t know the difference between debit and credit.

I Miss The Real Malaysia: Cash price is when you pay your cronies. Special price is when you give super discount to your children or high price for government contracts. Contract price is what you want public to see.

No need to be accountant to know lah, diploma student already know… I wonder how he got his grades and how he became PM.

Bumiasli: When in court, one must never answer questions he does not understand. If he had wanted, Dr M could have requested the court to explain further on the terms he claimed he did not understand.

Anyway, the terms used were not something which a former PM for 20 odd years would not understand. And to top it all, he held the position of finance minister. This type of witness is not cooperating with the court.

Absalom: So being popular and winning elections overrides doing the right thing, which is saving taxpayers’ money?

It stands to reason, why some politicians do everything in their power (including abuse it) to make a lot of money so they can give some away to be popular, and win elections.

Dark Knight: Become popular with whom, Mahathir? With one company or with the entire electorate?

The government would have become popular with the electorate by saving money, but Mahathir did the opposite – paying more to a company and claiming now it was done to seek popularity.

This does not make any sense at all. And how could he misuse taxpayers’ money to seek electoral popularity?

Gggg: Did anyone ask Mahathir how can buying the piece of land at a higher price be good for his popularity? Was he admitting the extra money helps in elections?

NewMalaysia: What a lousy excuse, and you gladly approved the project without even getting the terms and facts correct? This is how you and BN manage the country’s funds?

Again my biggest question would still be how Kuala Dimensi was able to get hold of such a big piece of land of 1,000 acres before selling it to Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) with a huge profit?

Unless, of course, they obtain inside information of the project. Try explaining that first.

Rightan: If RM21psf (per square foot) is cash price, then why buy at the contracted price of RM25.85psf, which already incorporated the interest and then pay an additional interest at 7.5% per annum?

No wonder our school children are so confused nowadays by the behaviour of our politicians.

FellowMalaysian: Mahathir’s age has finally caught up with him. After being carefully rehearsed by Ling’s lawyers and accountants, he admitted making a blunder with the land price figures.

The day before, Mahathir was so sure of his knowledge in finance and his grasp in accountancy terminologies that he even lectured in court how various figures of land prices were derived and lamented that lawyers were unable to comprehend these figures.

With the blunder which he admitted yesterday, it is indeed hard to believe that what he had mentioned in Ling’s hearing so far had not been the result of an intensive course by Ling’s accountants and lawyers.

Lim Chong Leong: When statements are contradictory, that means one of them is not true, which in turn means the speaker of those statements had been untruthful.

What is there to deny? It is a fact that he was untruthful in at least one of those statements. Period. No need to say what a schoolboy understand or does not.

So all these charges against his old friend Ling Liong Sik is just a ‘sandiwara’ (a show), nothing more nothing less.

Sangat Teroh: That was why he gambled away billions of ringgit during Bank Negara’s wild speculative days because he could not understand the word “cash”.

Hang Babeuf: Those who are “truly and truthfully contradictory” are people who want “to have things both ways”.

That is to say, people who do not wish to accept the responsibility of making clear choices, or people who will not accept responsibility for the choices that they have made.

Heavywater: So much lies and deceit. Ling might as well just go to jail and end his suffering, to be followed by Dr M for aiding and abetting a felony offence.

One would have to wonder what more has happened beside this case? Cash is cash, everyone knows what that means, so how come Dr M misunderstood the question. He is learned after all, is he not?

StoptheRot: A school boy had been running this country for more than two decades. No wonder we are where we are. All a mess, like tumbled toys.

JT1E80: When Dr M contradicts himself that is still truthful, because Dr M is incapable of lying. The rest of us mere mortals, especially if you oppose his views, are incapable of telling the truth.

It would seem that Dr M has an exclusive franchise on truth. It does show what sort of a deluded person Dr M really is.

2 February 2013

Pendapat

Pendapat Anda?

PhilStar.com

Philippines – Manuel Amalilio is a nephew of the chief minister of Sabah, who blocked last week his repatriation to Manila where he is wanted for a P12-billion pyramiding scam.

This is according to Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, who called on his country’s police to
“act in accordance with law and not be seen taking orders from political masters.”

“Yes, his mother is Musa’s first cousin,” Anwar told The STAR when asked for details about Amalilio’s ties to Sabah Chief Minister Musa Aman.

“Amalilio’s real name is Kamal bin Said, born in Beaufort, Sabah,” Anwar said. “The mother is Zubaidah Omar, cousin of Chief Minister Musa Aman. Haji Aman (Musa’s father) and Haji Omar (Zubaidah’s father) are brothers.”

One reason given by Sabah airport police in stopping National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) agents, at the last minute, from flying Amalilio to Manila is that he is a protected Malaysian citizen.
“Amalilio is married to a Filipina, and holds a Philippine passport,” Anwar said.

Amalilio is facing court cases for duping last year more than 15,000 Visayans and Mindanaoans in a get-rich-quick scheme of his Aman Futures. He is hot news in predominantly Muslim Malaysia because most of Amalilio’s victims reportedly are from the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.
When President Aquino ordered his arrest last November, Amalilio fled to Sabah, where he reportedly was often seen in public.

Last week the Interpol branch in Malaysia arrested Amalilio, and promptly informed Manila.
The NBI dispatched a team to pick up Amalilio the other Friday. But the agents came home empty-handed. Sabah police retook Amalilio at the airport minutes before the flight, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima said.

Interior Secretary Mar Roxas, who had helped the thousands of victims sue Amalilio, revealed that no less than Chief Minister Musa intervened for the fugitive.

In a press conference in Kuala Lumpur yesterday, Anwar demanded an answer why his government is coddling criminals.

He also called on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to give full cooperation to Philippine authorities: “We should not be perceived as condoning criminal acts.” The Malaysian Foreign Minister Anifah Aman is the younger brother of Chief Minister Musa Aman. Going by Anwar’s expos, Anifah too is an uncle of Amalilio. Anifah and Musa are related to Malaysian Attorney General Abdul Gani Patail, who also hails from Sabah.
All three are close associates of Prime Minister Najib Razak in the ruling UMNO party.

In working for Amalilio’s repatriation, Aquino, Roxas, De Lima, and Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario will be dealing with Musa, Anifah, Patail, and Razak.

Manila has no extradition treaty with Kuala Lumpur. The story grew hotter in Malaysia last Thursday when Anwar issued this press statement: “Blocking repatriation of wanted conman – Follow due process

“The claim by Philippine Interior Secretary Mar Roxas that Sabah Chief Minister Musa Aman has blocked the repatriation of the Philippines’ most wanted conman is most shocking and we demand an explanation.
“The conman known as Manuel Karingal Amalilio is also said to be Musa’s nephew and going by the name of Mohammad Sufian Said.

“This is not a petty issue as he is alleged to have cheated over 15,000 people of 12 billion pesos or about RM900 million! Musa must come clean on these allegations. Remaining silent is not an option. “Meanwhile, the Malaysian police must act in accordance with the law and must not be seen to be taking orders from political masters. The idea that our law enforcers are party to any act or conspiracy to harbor criminals is absolutely repugnant and scandalous.

“I urge the Inspector General of Police to take immediate action to heed Manila’s request and help bring the suspect to justice. Due process must be observed and Amalilio must be given a fair trial. –with Pia Lee-Brago

1 February 2013

Pendapat

Pendapat Anda?

Human Rights Watch

 

Rights to Free Expression, Peaceful Assembly Take Hits

Prime Minister Najib Razak’s promised reforms did not significantly improve legal protections for basic liberties in Malaysia, Human Rights Watch said today in its World Report 2013. Press restrictions, the use of excessive force against peaceful demonstrators, and intimidation of rights groups exposed the limits of government adherence to internationally recognized human rights.

In its 665-page report, Human Rights Watch assessed progress on human rights during the past year in more than 90 countries, including an analysis of the aftermath of the Arab Spring.

In Malaysia, Human Rights Watch said, government respect for basic rights and liberties is likely to be tested in the run-up to national parliamentary elections, which must be held no later than June 2013.

“The Malaysian government’s promised human rights agenda fell far short in practice in 2012,” said Phil Robertson, Asia deputy director at Human Rights Watch. “As elections approach, the government will need to demonstrate its willingness to uphold the rights of all citizens, whatever their political views.”

On April 28, 2012, tens of thousands of peaceful protesters were met by water cannon, teargas, beatings, and arrests during a march and sit-in led by Bersih, a coalition of civil rights organizations, to demand clean and fair elections. A government committee set up to investigate the incident has done little to shed light on the actions of the authorities on that day. Negotiations between the police and a coalition of opposition political parties and activist groups resulted in a peaceful gathering of the “People’s Uprising Rally” in Merdeka Stadium in Kuala Lumpur on January 12, 2013.

Revisions to longstanding abusive laws had less of an impact on the ground than was hoped, Human Rights Watch said. The replacement of section 27 of the Police Act by the Peaceful Assembly Act did not rescind the absolute power of the police to grant permits for demonstrations. Instead the new law allows police to effectively outlaw marches by prohibiting “moving assemblies” by declaring innumerable sites off limits, and by giving the police the power to set time, date, and place conditions. The People’s Uprising Rally organizers agreed to 27 conditions – including on appropriate slogans – before their rally got approval, and the government is currently investigating compliance with three of the conditions.

In another legal reform that fell short of international standards, the Malaysian government repealed the infamous Internal Security Act (ISA), and substituted the Security Offenses (Special Measures) 2012 Act (SOSMA). SOSMA reduced arbitrary detention to 28 days instead of the indeterminate period permitted under the ISA but added new infringements of rights. The law’s definition of a security defense is overbroad. Police, rather than judges, have the power to authorize communication intercepts, and prosecutors can utilize information as evidence without disclosing sources. Moreover, should a suspect be acquitted and the state appeal that decision, the acquitted suspect may be detained in prison or tethered to a monitoring device until the appeal is settled, a process that could take years.

Government harassment of human rights defenders continued in 2012, Human Rights Watch said. In response to spurious allegations by Jaringan Melayu Malaysia, an organization with close ties to Malaysia’s leaders, the government pursued a politically motivated investigation of Suaram, a leading Malaysian human rights organization in operation since 1989. At least six government agencies are seeking to find Suaram’s registration and operations illegal. Investigators have harassed staff and supporters, and threatened them with arrest while government politicians and government-controlled media outlets have publicly attacked the organization. On September 3, a week before investigations had begun, a government minister accused Suaram of keeping “highly suspicious” accounts and said that “99.4 percent” of its activities were “money collecting.”

Groups supporting the rights of lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender (LGBT) people fared even worse, Human Rights Watch said. In two speeches in 2012, Prime Minister Najib condoned discrimination by singling out the LGBT community as a threatening “deviant culture” that “would not have a place in the country.” Not only was the annual Seksualiti Merdeka (Sexual Diversity, in English) festival canceled in 2012 amidst ongoing intimidation of the LGBT community, but a court refused a judicial review of the police ban on the 2011 festival, a decision that festival organizers say leaves future festivals in legal limbo.

“The Malaysian authorities should respect the fundamental rights of non-discrimination and equality, and stop demonizing people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity,” said Boris Dittrich, advocacy director for the LGBT program at Human Rights Watch.

Reforms to freedom of the press also proved to be less than anticipated, Human Rights Watch said. The Printing Presses and Publications Act was amended, dropping the requirement for annual licensing of publications and ending the Home Affairs Minister’s power to award or rescind publishing licenses without court review. However, the revised law still requires that new publications obtain initial approval, and licenses still may be arbitrarily revoked.

The government appealed a 2011 Kuala Lumpur High Court ruling that a “license to publish is a right, not a privilege,” therefore requiring review of the government’s “improper and irrational” unwillingness to issue a license to the largest on-line newspaper, Malaysiakini, to publish a daily print edition.

An amendment to the Evidence Act provides that computer owners and operators of computer networks are publishers and thus responsible for the content displayed on their screens unless they could prove they had nothing to do with the content. This raises concerns about the presumption of innocence as well as free expression.

Malaysian police appear to routinely violate the rights of persons in custody, Human Rights Watch said. Police personnel have employed unnecessary or excessive force during demonstrations, while carrying out arrests, and in police lockups. Deaths in custody, routinely attributed to disease, go uninvestigated, suspects are beaten to coerce confessions, and criminal suspects die in suspicious circumstances during apprehension by police. Alleged police abuses go uninvestigated.

Malaysian immigration law still does not recognize refugees and asylum seekers, and prohibits them from working and their children from going to school. Unauthorized migrants face arrest and detention in unsanitary and overcrowded immigration detention centers, and caning for violating the immigration law. Anti-trafficking efforts conflate human trafficking with people smuggling, and punishes rather than protects trafficking victims by holding them in inadequate, locked shelters that resemble detention centers rather than care facilities. The government continues to do little to protect migrant domestic workers from beatings and sexual abuse by their employers.

“Numerous sectors of Malaysia’s economy depend on migrant workers, yet Malaysia continues to treat them as disposable people who can be used and abused,” said Robertson. “The government should fully respect migrant workers’ rights and stop re-victimizing those who have been trafficked to Malaysia.”

To read Human Rights Watch’s World Report 2013 chapter on Malaysia, please visit:
www.hrw.org/world-report/2013/country-chapters/world-report-2013-malaysia

For more Human Rights Watch reporting on Malaysia, please visit:
http://www.hrw.org/asia/malaysia

1 February 2013

Pendapat

Pendapat Anda?

The Philippine Star

One moment the Armed Forces brass says that soldiers have been re-indoctrinated to respect civil rights. In the next it pleads for sympathy that troopers emptied rifle magazines into two vanloads of civilians since “they were only following orders.”

In short the generals are saying that their men are caring, dutiful killers. No wonder Commander-in-Chief Noynoy Aquino had to tell them to stop telling tall tales about the Atimonan massacre of 13 men.

At any rate, the brass should make the 25 soldiers’ commanding officer answer for shouting, “Fire!” Soldiers obey only their CO.

Something stinks about police officers owning security agencies. Will they ever fight crime as earnestly as they should, if they need to justify the hiring of their security guards by malls, banks, restaurants, offices, subdivisions, plantations, ports, everywhere? Is the number of guards in the Philippines inversely equivalent to police efficiency? In countries where police response and crime investigation are superb, businesses do not need private security services.

Will the probe of the Atimonan massacre delve as well into why the 13 fatalities were travelling armed? Reports have it that group leader, Vic Siman, and one companion, police colonel Alfredo Consemino, had just met with one Ronnie Habatin in Bicol to merge their security and mining businesses. The ambushing police officers claimed that Siman had headed a private army. Thirteen registered and one unlicensed firearms were found inside the group’s two SUVs. They had not come from a shooting competition, so what were they, with three policemen and five soldiers, up to?

Philippine officials need to get hold from Malaysia the fugitive Ponzi-scammer Manuel Amalilio. So they need to be very courteous in talking repatriation with Malaysian counterparts. They also have to be very cautious. For, Amalilio’s stolen multibillion pesos can bribe the Malaysians into keeping him safely in Sabah, away from Philippine justice.

The Chief Minister of Sabah, Musa Aman, was responsible for stopping agents of the Philippine National Bureau of Investigation last Friday from flying Amalilio out of there. Musa Aman is in fact viewed as one of Malaysia’s crookedest officials. What could have induced him to save the head of Aman Futures, who duped some 15,000 Visayans and Mindanaoans of P12 billion?

Hours earlier, Malaysian feds had nabbed and turned over Amalilio to the NBI. Last minute, on the pretext that he is a protected Malaysian national, Sabah airport guards barred the Filipino lawmen from taking back the absconder.

After some initial confusion, the Sabah Chief Minister no less emerged as having ordered Amalilio’s reprieve. When Manila showed proof that the wanted man is Filipino, Musa changed his tune. He claimed that Amalilio had conned Sabahans too, so their complaints must be investigated. He couldn’t explain why Amalilio purportedly would be grilled only now. The fugitive had fled Mindanao for Sabah as far back as November; ripped-off Filipinos had been sighting him there in public.

Musa is known to lie with a straight face when exposed for sleaze. Like, when prominent Sabah timber concessionaire Michael Chia (alias Chia Tien Foh), was arrested in Hong Kong smuggling out $16.6 million last year. Musa swore he has never met him. The Malaysian press reprinted photos of Musa and Chia handshaking and arms over shoulders in several socials over the past decade.

Chia’s smuggling prompted an investigation by Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption. The ICAC unearthed Musa’s money laundering all the way to Zurich (starting with $20 million in 1998) and the British Virgin islands (initially with $9 million in 2005).

The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission conducted a parallel probe. Uncovered were remittances from Chia and his lawyer Richard Christopher Barnes to Musa’s two sons in Australia, via banks in Singapore.

International conservationists have been expressing concern that Musa is giving away timber concessions in Sabah. Deforestation there has been identified as one of the main causes of global warming that triggers catastrophic weather.

Meanwhile, some concessionaires have complained of Chia’s prohibitive extortions in behalf of Musa, the chairman of Sabah’s timber board. One exposé is about his grant of a lucrative logging site to Chia’s mistress.

More than 40 charges were brought against Musa. But he was able to elude them — and prevent the ICAC and MACC from synchronizing their probes — through political connections.

Musa is the older brother of Malaysian Foreign Minister Anifah Aman, and a close kin of Attorney General Abdul Gani Patail.

As head in Sabah of Malaysia’s ruling UMNO party, Musa is also its chief fundraiser and so a strong ally of Prime Minister Najib Razak. Razak is himself being linked to a $40-million kickback from the purchase of three submarines from France and the murder of a Mongolian socialite who publicly raised a fuss about her share. The UMNO tried to make it look like the recent dollar smuggling from Hong Kong was a donation for the forthcoming parliamentary election.

Amalilio is facing some 8,000 court cases in the Philippines. President Noynoy Aquino, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, Interior Secretary Mar Roxas, and Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario are collaborating to bring him back and face the music. In so doing, they will have to deal with Musa, Anifah, Patail, and Razak.

30 January 2013

Pendapat

Pendapat Anda?



Switch to our mobile site