Let all the perpetrators be forewarned with Shaariibu’s (Altantuya’s father) statement, “There is a saying in Mongolia, ‘no matter what you hide, it will surface and people will know’. God is looking upon us and the truth will come out,” .

From Malay Mail 24 June, 2008

Disquiet > A game of high-stakes poker?
Malik Imtiaz Sarwar

WHETHER the unprecedented SAPP motion of no confidence is going to be tabled for debate appears to have been edged out as the question of the hour by whether there is any substance in Raja Petra’s incendiary Statutory Declaration on the killing of Altantunya that hit the Internet late last
week.

The Statutory Declaration, a sworn statement under law which makes a false statement a criminal offence, alleges amongst other things that Raja Petra was reliably informed that a very prominent VVIP, together with two other persons, was at the scene of the crime, the formerwitnessing the placing of explosives by one of the two others.Hefurtheralleges that the PrimeMinister received a written report of the matter fromMilitary Intelligence.
Needless to say, there is some measure of incredulity on the part of some who suggest that Raja Petra of Malaysia Today fame has a tendency towards sensationalism.

They question the manner in which the information was made public and the fact that Raja Petra did not lodge a police report.

Others have been less quick to brush aside the matter, more confident of Raja Petra having a foundation for the Declaration. A very public figure whose advocacy in the run up to the last General Election is credited by many as one of the swing factors, he is already facing a sedition charge for an Internet publication on the Altantunya trial. And all things said and done, a statutory declaration is a very different thing from commentary on Malaysia Today.

Is Raja Petra playing a game of high-stakes poker? That is the million-dollar question and there is no apparent answer.

In the Declaration, Raja Petra states that its purpose is to allow the police to conduct a proper and thorough investigation to allow the truth to emerge. The persons he has identified have not been implicated nor called as witnesses in the on-going murder trial.

They have as yet to issue any public denials, seemingly choosing to remain silent.

Surprisingly, the Prime Minister has chosen to do so as well; one would think circumstances compel him at the very least to take a public stand on whether Military Intelligence did give him a report.

If founded, the apparent lack of investigation into the matter raises doubts as to not only the culpability of the accused but of whether they have been accorded their full “due-process” rights in law.

They also equally point to the possibility of those actually or equally responsible having been let off free.

These bring into question the effectiveness and integrity of the criminal justice system and further erode the already seriously undermined administration of justice. The Declaration is as such a matter of great public importance.

Whatever the case, it is imperative that the government must take appropriate steps to not only look into thematter fairly and thoroughly, but also be seen to be doing so in a transparentmanner.

The machinery for an investigation seems to have been fired up. However, in light of a media report that the Attorney-General’s Chambers has lodged a police report againstRaja Petra, apparently for criminal defamation, I am concerned that the focus of the exercise will be Raja Petra rather than the substance ofhis allegations in a manner reminiscent of the Irene Fernandez affair.

In Fernandez’s case, a defamation report was lodged against her after she made public shocking revelations about goings-ons at the Semenyih detention facility, then under the control of the Royal Malaysia Police. This resulted in Fernandez being prosecuted and ultimately convicted. Significantly, investigations into the events at Semenyih were incidental to theonly formal investigations that took place, the investigation for criminal defamation.

I have grave reservations about the Attorney-General’s Chambers having lodged the police report. It is more usually the person aggrieved, especially where defamation is concerned, that lodges the report.

In this case, it should have been the persons identified in the Statutory Declaration, if at all. Furthermore, the Attorney-General is the legal adviser to the government and serves its interests and not those of individuals, notwithstanding their having a connectionwith government.

It is also mystifying how the Attorney-General could have formed the viewthat the Declaration was defamatory before apparently even looking into the allegations,more so in light of the Inspector General of Police declaring that the police would be calling up the three individuals named in theDeclaration.

One would have thought that the Attorney-General would have considered the matter as whole first before directing the lodging of the police report. This and the fact of theAttorney-General’s Chambers not having lodged a parallel report as to the fact of the allegations are suggestive of a presupposition that the declaration is false.

If so, this may impede the objective enquiry called for by the situation. This would bewrong.

AfterMarch 8 this year, the Prime Minister in effect said that the government had to listen to the rakyatmore.

The rakyat has demanded accountability and transparency.

The murkiness surrounding the killing of Altantunya has long been and continues to be the subject of public discussion in part due to her father’s tireless campaign for nothing more than the bringing to book of the killers of his daughter.

The fact of his having to do so is an indictment against this nation.

Let the truth emerge. One way or the other, let it out.