THERE IS NO ESCAPE: Najib, Gani must respond to the latest Altantuya allegations

Written by  Gobind Singh Deo

Malaysia will forever remain in a dark cloud over the killing of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu because of the failure on part of our criminal justice system to secure complete justice for her.

We have failed until now to explain why Altantuya was killed and more importantly who directed her killing.

The recent claims by Deepak Jaikishan surrounding the making of a statutory declaration has added more fuel into a fire which just cannot seem to be put out.

The Attorney General Tan Sri Gani Patail, should respond to the allegations made by Deepak that "justice has not yet been done "in the case involving Altantuya

WHO ORDERED THE KILLING?

Deepak was earlier reported as saying:

"Whoever actually killed her, who actually instructed her killing, should be responsible. They must take the responsibility."

This question has been asked again and again. The AG should tell us, who ordered the killing and why? This is the most important aspect of the case which has not been answered until now.

This angle ought to have been probed further during the trial of those who were charged with her murder. It is basic in all cases like this that motive is established. The prosecution owe the family of the deceased and the general public a duty here.

DEAFENING SILENCE

It is also surprising to note the Prime Ministers silence in this matter.

The Prime Minister has in past cases involving suspicious deaths, recognized the need for full 'no stone unturned' inquiries so as to get to the truth and so as to find justice and closure for the deceased and the families of the deceased.

Why is it different with Altantuya? Why are we not pressing for answers to these most important aspects of the case? Isn't the Prime Minister as head of the government interested to know what actually happened more so given the manner in which the murder was executed?

JUSTICE MUST BE DONE

It is said that "Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done".

I challenge the Prime Minister to direct a full inquiry into these aspects of this case. We must get to the truth. The truth must prevail.

With the election looming, the Prime Minister cannot afford to have this problem hoovering over his head. If he feels there is no need for further inquiry, and that the earlier investigations have answered all questions, then he should tell us, what does the investigation reveal?

Who ordered the killing of Altantuya and why?

GOBIND SINGH DEO is the DAP MP for Puchong

Source: http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=45181:justice-for-altantuya-pm-ag-must-respond&Itemid=2

Section 114A: ‘No abuse’ pledge is nonsense

September 05, 2012

By Gobind Singh Deo

SEPT 5 — The government has pledged not to abuse Section 114A of the Evidence Act in the hope that this would soothe criticisms made against it of late.

It is somewhat strange but, ordinarily, such a pledge is unnecessary. All laws are not to be abused. That would be illegal. There is no need for the government to say it. That is the law.

Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz is also in no position to make such a pledge. He has no role to play in the investigative process leading to criminal prosecutions. Neither does he have a say in how cases are to be prosecuted. Neither does the government.

So, how do they enforce such a pledge?

The culture of passing laws that are accepted as capable of being abused and followed by pledges of non abuse makes a mockery of Parliament and the legislative process. It cannot and must not be condoned.

History has shown that laws have been enacted in Malaysia with such assurances only to be abused later.

A search on Wikipedia reveals the following of and concerning the Internal Security Act (ISA).

“The stated purpose of the ISA was to deter communist activity in Malaysia during the Malayan Emergency and afterwards. The first Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tunku Abdul Rahman, defined the purpose of the act as to ‘be used solely against the communists. My colleagues and I gave a solemn promise to Parliament and the nation that the immense powers given to the government under the ISA would never be used to stifle legitimate opposition and silence lawful dissent’. The third Prime Minister, Tun Hussein Onn, stated at the same time that his administration had enforced the act only with a view to curbing communist activity, and not to repress ‘lawful political opposition and democratic citizen activity’.”

It is common knowledge that the ISA was used over and above what it was intended for. It was abused. And this became the basis for which it was later repealed.

It is appalling to note that despite our having learnt that such pledges and promises have in the past proven futile, we still find the government of day, in desperation, making them.

The fact that such an assurance has to be given indicates an acknowledgment that the section is open to abuse.

This is enough for the government to bring the matter back to Parliament so as to put matters right.

This is a matter that Parliament — and not anybody else — should decide.

* Gobind Singh Deo is the member of parliament for Puchong

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/section-114a-no-abuse-pledge-is-nonsense-gobind-singh-deo/

BN must take full responsibility for Evidence Act amendment

By Gobind Singh Deo

August 15, 2012

AUG 15 ― Barisan Nasional must accept and acknowledge that the amendments to Section 114A of the Evidence Act were a mistake.

The prime minister has in a tweet said he has asked the Cabinet to discuss Section 114A. He said, “whatever we do, the people must come first”.

With respect to the prime minister, whilst the voice of the people plays a significant role in the matter and must be given due regard and respect, he should also reflect upon why and how it is, if the people came first, his government allowed this law to be passed in the first place.

The Bill was debated in Parliament and it was none other than Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz who responded to concerns raised by members of parliament.

Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz is himself a lawyer. He is said to be the de facto law minister.

The concerns over reversal of burden were put by me and other MP’s squarely to him during the debate. He was made well aware of the problem but chose to do nothing about it.

As BN parliamentary whip, he could have stopped it, but as in the case of all other Bills, it was pushed through.

And now when there is public outrage, we see BN MP’s, including the PM, joining in the call for reviews. This is good but, really, and with the greatest of respect to them, it makes a complete mockery of Parliament.

What we see is a failure on part of BN to understand and properly acknowledge issues when debating bills in Parliament, a failure on part of BN to respect and take seriously the views and concerns of  members of parliament.

Perhaps we ought to reconsider pushing through Bills in the middle of the night, stopping the clock, and relying on the might of Parliamentary majority to pass anything tabled, whatsoever it is.

The Attorney-General should advise the Cabinet properly this time.

The rationale behind presumptions ought to be re-evaluated.

It is where the facts that need proof are within the knowledge of the accused and beyond that of the state that presumptions are applied.

So where the information is within the personal knowledge of the accused, the presumption will be invoked and it would be upon the accused to provide proof of facts showing he is not guilty of the offence.

This is what we call the reversal of burden as the burden of proof is ordinarily on the part of the prosecution in criminal prosecutions.

The state has all the resources and information required to prove those matters sought to be presumed under Section 114A. As such, Section 114A loses its purpose. There is really, therefore, no need to depart from the norm here. There is no need for a reversal of burden.

Its existence, on the other hand, opens very many innocent persons to prosecution.

It is, to my mind, unfair and unnecessary and must therefore be repealed as soon as possible.

* Gobind Singh Deo is the member of parliament for Puchong

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/bn-must-take-full-responsibility-for-evidence-act-amendment-gobind-singh-deo/