Bala SD corrections

Balasubramaniam woke up this morning and discovered that he made some mistakes in his earlier Statutory Declaration. He quickly got a new lawyer and immediately set out to make the necessary corrections and make his SD-II.

The following is the new statutory declaration released by P Balasubramanian today at a press conference in Kuala Lumpur.

I, Balasubramaniam Perumal, do solemnly and sincerely declare as follows:

4. I wish to retract all the statements that I have made in paragraphs 8, 25, 28, 49 and 50 to 52 of my statutory declaration dated July 1, 2008. The statements contained in paragraphs 8, 25, 28, 49 and 50 to 52 of my statutory declaration dated July 1, 2008 are inaccurate and not the truth. I wish to expressly state that:

a) At no material time did Abdul Razak Baginda inform me that he was introduced to Altantuya Shaariibuu by a VIP;

b) At no material time did Razak Baginda inform me that Najib Razak had a sexual relationship with Altantuya Shaariibuu and the she was susceptible to anal intercourse;

c) At no material time did Abdul Razak Baginda inform me that Najib Razak instructed Abdul Razak Baginda to look after Altantuya Shaariibuu as he did not want her to harass him since he was the deputy prime minister;

d) At no material time did Razak Baginda and/or Altantuya Shaariibuu inform me that Najib Razak, together with Abdul Razak Baginda and Altantuya Shaariibuu had met and all been together at a dinner in Paris;

e) At no material time did Altantuya Shaariibuu inform me that she wanted money in the sum of US$500,000 as a commission for a submarine deal she assisted with in Paris;

f) At no time whatsoever did Abdul Razak Baginda and/or Altantuya Shaariibuu inform me that Najib Razak met with Altantuya Shaariibuu in Singapore;

g) At no time whatsoever did Altantuya Shaariibuu inform me that she wanted me to arrange to see Najib Razak;

h) At no time did I tell the police during the course of their investigations about any relationship between Najib Razak and Altantuya Shaariibuu as no such relationship existed to my knowledge. Accordingly, the statement I signed before the police is complete;

i) At no time did Abdul Razak Baginda inform me that he had sent Najib Razak an SMS the evening before he was arrested; and

j) At no time did Abdul Razak Baginda inform me that Najib Razak had sent him an SMS on the day of his arrest to the effect that he was going to see the IGP that day and that the matter should be resolved and for Abdul Razak Baginda to remain calm.

5. In addition, I wish to retract the entire contents of my statutory declaration dated July 1, 2008. I was compelled to affirm the said statutory declaration dated July 1, 2008 under duress.

And I make this solemn declaration voluntarily and conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1960.

Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal

Source: Extracts of Bala's new statutory declaration



Bala said: "I wish to retract the first declaration. I was compelled to affirm the July 1 declaration under duress."

He however did not reveal who forced him to affirm the first declaration.

Bala's former lawyer, Americk Sidhu, who was with him yesterday was unaware of the latest development.

Americk told Malaysiakini that Balasubramaniam received a phone call from the police soon after his press conference yesterday to report to the Brickfields police station.

Americk Sidhu said that he last saw Balasubramaniam at 4.45pm after dropping off his client at the police station.

Source: Malaysiakini

So, everything is now clarified; Najib had nothing to do with the whole Altantunya episode; it was merely a bad dream, some kind of a neurotic disorder, something which we often called insane delusion, which affects his mind at that particular time and of which had cause him to pre-assumed/perceived some phenomena which did not exist; and of which he was not able to discern and have no control over his mind.

Now that he had fully recovered, he would want to correct the wrong and make it right; so that the right would not be wronged, and permits the wrong to be the right.

Now we all can see clearly the difference between the right and wrong. The wrong is now righted and the earlier right is now pronounced to bewrong.

But it does cause some uncertainty when the certainty is clarified, that we can neither see which is right nor what is wrong; and neither can we now understand the right from the wrong; for the right had displaced the wrong, and the wrong from the right, such that the right becomes wrong, and the wrong now righted in such way that the right can also be wrong, while the wrong is now called right.

It is now clear that there can be no right or wrong, for wrong can be perceived to be right and the right had been perceived as wrong. We can fully understand the right and the wrong as long as the wrong is made to be wrong and the right is declared as right.

Right or wrong? Can you tell me, please?