Gutter Politicians,Scumbags And Half-Past Six Lawyers

Hantu Laut

If  Darth Vader has the order of the 'Sith', Anwar now has the order of the SD (Statutory Declaration), a new ill- founded weapon specially designed to attack Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, implicating him in the murder of the sultry Mongolian model.This is the 2nd SD after Raja Petra's equally explosive bombshell.

On the other side of the fence the story of  saving a victim from the trauma of being sodomised was equally bizarre.

Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak has finally revealed that the victim purportedly sodomised by Anwar came to his house as he was too traumatised.The DPM opened his doors and opened his heart to console him.

The good news, now Malaysians who felt traumatised can go to the DPM's house to be consoled.All Malaysian are welcome to take this opportunity if they can get pass the security guards manning the entrance to his house.

Strangely, the victim Mohd Saiful Bukhari instead of going directly to a police station to lodge a report chose to go to the DPM's house first and only reported the case 2 days after the incident.The said victim had also been seen and photographed visiting the DPM's office some months ago purportedly to apply for a scholarship.

Coming back to the ill-conceived idea of using SD to swear evidence based on hearsay, I wonder if the lawyer concerned had warned the person making the declaration  the risk involved and the penalty for making false evidence under the Act. Either he has not or the reward offered was too tempting to refuse in spite of the risk.

 

Below are my compilation of the Statutory Declaration Act and the Penal Code (Act 574):

This Act may be cited as the Statutory Declarations Act 1960.

False declarations punishable under the Penal Code.

3.Declarations made by virtue of provisions of this Act shall be deemed to be such declarations as are

refereed to Sections 199 and 200 of the Penal Code(Act 574)

Below are the relevant sections of the Penal Code.

199.False statement made in any declaration which is by law receivable as evidence.

Whoever, in any declaration made or subscribed by him, which declaration any Court, or any public servant or other person, is bound or authorised by law to receive as evidence of any fact, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, touching any point material to the object for which the declaration is made or used, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.

200.Using as true any such declaration known to be false.

Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use as true any such declaration knowing the same to be false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.

Below are punishments for giving false evidence:

194.Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of a capital offence.

Whoever gives or fabricates false evidence, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, any person to be convicted of an offence which is capital by the law for the time being in force in Malaysia, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if an innocent person be convicted and executed in consequence of such false evidence, the person who gives such false evidence shall be punished either with death or the punishment hereinbefore described.

195.Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of an offence punishable with imprisonment.

Whoever gives or fabricates false evidence, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, any person to be convicted of an offence which by this Code is not capital, but punishable with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term of seven years or upwards, shall be punished as a person convicted of that offence would be liable to be punished.

Ex-policeman P.Subramaniam would have to face the music under this section of the Penal Code.His retraction of the 1st SD and replaced by a 2nd SD had made the matter worse for him.He had actually confirmed he lied under oath and incriminated himself.He should not have changed his mind, he did because he knew it was a lie.Another irresponsible lawyer giving wrong advice.

Lying to implicate someone of murder is a serious crime which carry the same sentence as murder itself.Anwar and his half-past-six lawyers should take responsibility if this man goes to prison.

Meanwhile,lawyer Datuk Hazman Ahmad, a defence lawyer for one of the accused in the murder case said Balasubramaniam had the right to substitute his previous SD with a new one.So, Bala what are you waiting for, you can produce a dozen or so more SD according to this lawyer.

Wow! What's happening to the state of our legal profession, you get lawyer giving this kind of advice.

Another rather interestingly ignorant statement came from the President of GPMS Datuk Reezal Merican who said a review must be done to prevent people from using sworn statement to slander others and the law must spell out punishment on those who made false declarations.

Another one of those who thinks he is making a smart statement when the law is already in existence to deal with such matters.Hiya! my friend, learn how to read and do your homework first before you go out and embarrass yourself. 

Meanwhile, the lawyer Americk Singh who drafted the SD for Balasubramaniam said he believes Bala was telling the truth and could have been intimidated to change his story.

Maybe,it's the fish head curry he had with ASP Tony that was probably laced with the truth drug that knocked some sense out of him.

While Najib and Anwar are at each other's throat, Abdullah stands out sitting pretty.

Malaysian politics have gone dodgy and dirty.

Gone to the dogs ! 

Read:

Wong Chun Wai's 'Sick,tired and fed up'

Marina Mahathir's 'I think I'll go on strike'