Bar Council Promoting Hearsay Culture

Hantu Laut

What's the big outcry about the lawyer who drafted S.Bala 2nd SD (Statutory Declaration)?

You don't need a lawyer to write your SD, you can draft your own SD as it is your own testimony. 

If you can write simple language, you certainly can prepare you own SD. 

When you lose your I/C, you need to swear an oath where,when and how you lose your I/C and to fulfill that requirement you need to have a statutory declaration. 

Most people do it themselves, but for more complex matters you may need a lawyer, but it is not mandatory that you must use a lawyer if you are confident of doing it yourself.

I am not sure whether Raja Petra used a lawyer for his SD, as he himself is a good writer, well exposed and are not ignorant of the many laws of this country. 

S.Bala may be dumber than a fifth grader, that's why he needs a lawyer to draft his SD and later changed his tune that he signed it under duress.

If you think you are not capable of writing it yourself, you may engage your friend who is better at writing to do it for you and all you have to do is to sign the SD in the presence of a Commissioner for Oaths as assurance that you are the actual person behind the SD.

In the case of S.Bala the question is not who drafted the SD but whether S. Bala was forced or coerced to sign the SD.

Did he sign it under duress, or was he the one who demanded that he be paid if they want him to change the SD?

He claimed he was paid and his testimony was confirmed by Deepak, who claimed he was the bag man, who arranged S.Bala to retract his 1st SD.

Both SDs of S.Bala and Raja Petra were based on hearsay and may not be admissible in a court of law. Heresay evidence is not acceptable in any court of law. 

It makes one wonder why some lawyers including the MOTHER of them all the BAR COUNCIL gives so much credence to the SD, which should have been destined to the rubbish bin and the makers charged for false declaration.

Any SD can be a work of fiction. Raja Petra and S.Bala SDs are not based on first hand knowledge but on stories provided to them by third party, who for all intents and purposes, might have been sent by the enemies of Najib with the cooked up stories.

It's mind boggling to think Rosmah Mansor had been that stupid as to attend the execution of Altantuya personally. That sounds more like a script written for Hollywood crime movie and the sad think is many Malaysians believe in the story.

I am surprise the Bar Council has jumped on the bandwagon in joining the witch hunt against the lawyer who was only doing his job for his client.

If the Bar Council had shown impartiality as defender of the law it would have advised the public to ignore the SDs of both Raja Petra and S.Bala from the day they were made public.

Unashamedly, the BAR COUNCIL is acting like an opposition political party with its own political agenda.

Is Haris Ibrahim Defending Blackmailers And Extortionists

Hantu Laut

As the general elections loom near, it's high hunting season in Malaysia . 

From revival of the Altantuya's impalpable ghost, to recycling of the RM40 million mysterious UMNO money cum Musa Aman money and to the incomprehensible SDs of Bala, the oppositions seemed to be running out of construction materials.

Here, a lawyer who sees politics a more rewarding career than practising law came out to side with the blackmailers and extortionists calling the Bar Council to take action against the lawyer that drafted the 2nd SD (Statutory Declaration) of P.Balasubramainiam, the ex-private investigator who claimed he was under duress and was paid to change his first SD, which he also claimed was made under duress.

In the West, where moral principle is much valued than in Malaysia the two clowns and their incredible stories would have been thrown to the wolves.

His excuse for the witch hunt is that the lawyer should have first consulted the private investigator before drafting the SD.

I am not a legally trained person but from my experience and business dealings with many lawyers, it may not be the case, as implied by Haris Ibrahim. A lawyer takes direction from his client, the one who pays his fees.

A lawyer is not a policeman, he merely take instruction from his client, and as long as there is no criminal element to the best of his knowledge he needs not consult any other person other than his client.

It is the same with banks, they only deal with documents and as long as the documents presented to the banks have no discrepancy and comply with terms and conditions of the L/C (Letter of Credit), the bank will pay its customers. It is not the bank responsibility to physically check the cargo and its actual loading on to the ship.

Should the cargo, which should have been coffee beans turned out to be broken bricks, the bank is not responsible. It becomes a fraudulent case for which the relevant law apply and up to the buyer to institute the necessary against the seller.

In international trade mutual trust exists between buyers and sellers but fraud can happen and had happened before. The case I quoted of coffee beans that turned to become broken bricks was a real story. 

It was in 1985, if I well remember, when I was still in the export business and the case was in Indonesia whereas the seller who was supposed to ship coffee beans cheated his European buyer by shipping broken bricks in sacks.

If you had been cheated in a business deal you have legal recourse, why mud-sling  irrelevant matters against people you have been apple-polishing when the going was good and turned against them when the tide was against you. That's, no less a contemptible lowlife.

For Haris Ibrahim, may I suggest he should first establish the fact whether somebody put a gun to Bala's head and forced him to sign the SD in the presence of the lawyer before he jumps the gun and accuses the lawyer concerned of dereliction of duty.

Statutory Declaration:Have Malaysians Gone Overboard ?

Hantu Laut

Malaysians hankering for a change in government have thrown caution to the wind and acted beyond the bound of acceptable human behaviour, that have the crudest of form and conjure weird tales from the twilight zones.

Some seemed to have the congenital inability to tell the truth. Those with the unflattering ability to spread falsehood have become celebrated purveyors of tales from the shit hole.

The latest in the episode of the uncouth use of the SD (Statutory Declaration) came from an ex-driver, a man honest to the bone.

This time it is the DPM again(Deputy Prime Minister), the target of intense propaganda machine that's out to end his political career.

The frivolous SD was a sworn statement of Thagarajoo, an ex-driver to Kenneth Esrawan, a close friend of Najib, declared that Najib is a Muslim by birth but a Hindu by practice.

Najib would be stupid if he doesn't capitalise on this SD in the Permatang Pauh by-election in the next few days to show the Malay voters to what extent, how far, how low and how dirty Anwar and his supporters are prepared to go to smear his name and that of the government to win this by- election and try to take over the government illegitimately when he is voted into Parliament.

Raja Petra seems to have the uncanny ability to obtain SD from truthseekers with schizoid tendencies.

Sorry for you Anwar Ibrahim, your overzealous supporters could be your biggest downfall.

This time you really are going to pissed-off your Malay voters.

Read the piquant SD of the piss artist here.

Even the Imam is playing politics read here and here

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'