Silly Zul or silly Anwar?
PKR MP Zulkifli Noordin claimed that he was offered generous rewards to implicate Prime Minister Najib Razak and First Lady Rosmah Mansor in the Altantuya sex, corruption and murder scandal.
Who is Zul, by what position or privileged position has he the special ability to implicate the first couple in a Malaysian court of law that it would not be overturned and rendered worthless?
SIRUL AND AZILAH ARE INTIMATELY INVOLVED IN THE CASE AND SO THEY MAY HAVE THE CAPACITY TO IMPLICATE THE FIRST COUPLE, ZUL IS JUST LAWYER FOR ONE OF THEM SO HIS TESTIMONY EVEN IF IMPLICATING IS LIKELY TO BE NEUTRALIZABLE BY COURTS THAT ARE FAR FROM IMPECCABLY IMPARTIAL SO WHY WOULD ANWAR BE SO SILLY AS TO OFFER GENEROUS REWARDS TO HIM.
IT IS PLAUSIBLE IF BAGINDA WAS OFFERED GENEROUS REWARDS BY ANWAR TO IMPLICATE THE FIRST COUPLE BUT IT IS A FAIRY TALE OF A HIGH ORDER THAT ANWAR WOULD VALUE HIS ASSISTANCE MUCH.
IF ANWAR WAS TO OFFER ZUL GENEROUS REWARDS FOR IMPLICATING THE FIRST COUPLE HE WOULD BE SILLY.
IT IS SILLY OF ZUL TO ALLEGE THAT ANWAR WOULD OFFER HIM, A MERE LAWYER IN THE CASE TO IMPLICATE THE FIRST COUPLE. WHAT WEIGHT DOES HIS IMPLICATION CARRY?
Who can implicate:
In order to implicate a person you must be intimately involved in the case, even be charged in the case.
Thus Razak, Sirul and Azilah are all intimately involved in the case and so it is possible they can implicate the first couple if they are involved.
Zul was just a lawyer for one of the accused who was subsequently removed perhaps because they found out his opposition links and so he is only secondarily involved in the case and even if the accused has confided in him as to the involvement of the first couple, that is hearsay and can be dismissed by a partial court as fabricated.
THUS ZUL CAN TRY TO IMPLICATE THE FIRST COUPLE BUT HIS EVIDENCE IS LIGHT WEIGHT BECAUSE HE WAS NOT AT THE SCENE OF THE CRIME, WAS NOT INVOLVED IN CONVERSATIONS LEADING TO THE CRIME AND SO IT REFLECTS HIS INCOMPETENCE AS A LAWYER AND DELUSION THAT HE PERCEIVES IT IS CREDIBLE TO TOUT ANWAR PROFFERED HIM GENEROUS REWARDS TO IMPLICATE THE FIRST COUPLE. SIMILARLY PEOPLE WHO PERCEIVE HIS ALLEGATION AS PLAUSIBLE HAVE FALSE PERCEPTION OR ARE DELUDED.
Why only those involved can implicate:
It is not a great mystery or marvel why only those intimately involved can implicate.
If Sirul killed Altanturya and he did not do it on his own behalf, surely he should know who ordered him to do so and so if he implicates someone it must be considered. Again Razak Baginda is seriously involved in the case, it was he who brought the policemen into the case and so he should know if there are others involved in the case, he should know if he has spoken to people with major interest in the case.
THEREFORE IN ORDER TO BE CREDIBLE AS IMPLICATOR YOU MUST HAVE FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE OF THE CASE, BE ONE OF THE ACTORS OF THE CRIME, NOT A LAWYER PRIVY TO HEARSAY EVIDENCE.
Truly understanding what Sirul said:
WITH REFERENCE TO SIRUL’S STATEMENT, GIVE ME A LIST OF THE PERSONS WHO MUST BE PROTECTED NOT JUST BY SIRUL WHO IS COPPING THE DEATH SENTENCE BUT BY THE WHOLE POLICE AND JUDICIARY SYSTEM WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO COURT OR QUESTIONED IN COURT BUT WERE NEVER MADE TO. RAZAK IS DISQUALIFIED BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN QUESTIONED IN COURT.
People think they understand what they say or what they hear, or at least some if not most of the time but this may again be another false understanding they think is true because in truth emotional stylish people NEVER truly understand (in ways more than one) whatever they say or hear.
Thus Sirul said A, B, C (“I am just a black sheep that has to be sacrificed to protect unnamed people who have never been brought to court or questioned”) but he falsely understood he said A, B, X. People hear what Sirul said A, B, C but they falsely understood he said A, B, X.
Sirul understood falsely he implicated others but he did not pinpoint those persons but the true understanding is that he pinpointed the people he implicated.
Readers read Sirul alluding to other people implicated but they falsely understood that those persons remain tantalizing, cannot be pinpointed as to who he is alluding to.
EVEN THOUGH SIRUL IN HIS STATEMENT DID NOT SPECIFY WHO HE WAS REFERRING TO, THE INFORMATION HE SUPPLIES IS SPECIFIC ENOUGH TO PINPOINT TO A READER WHO TRULY UNDERSTANDS WHO HE IS REFERRING TO.
THUS SIRUL AND READERS THINK THE PERSON HE REFERS TO IS TANTALIZING, CAN BE GUESSED BUT CANNOT BE PINPOINTED BUT IT IS A FALSE UNDERSTANDING.
GIVE ME A LIST OF THE PERSONS WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN QUESTIONED IN COURT BUT WERE NEVER FOR WHOM SIRUL COULD BE ORDERED TO MURDER ANOTHER BEING AND HAVE SHOWN SUCH LOYALTY AS TO COP THE DEATH PENALTY WITHOUT SPILLING THE BEANS? IT IS UNLIKELY OR IMPOSSIBLE ANY OTHER HIGH LEVEL BUSINESSMAN OR POLITICIAN CAN ORDER SIRUL TO KILL AND COMMAND HIS LOYALTY NOT TO SPILL THE BEANS.
There is not one way but even a myriad of ways often concurrently present in which people never truly understand whatever they say or hear except in their delusion they do. For instance, if you are rehashing your understanding of what you heard then it is never the true specific to the occasion understanding. If there is accompanying style or force changes in whatever is said (as there is always in what people say) then because these intended force changes are meaningless, no one can truly understand force changes and so they can never truly understand what they say or hear. Often, they perceive what they say is true when it is false eg the world awaits Tiger’s return is always false because no even the golf world let alone the world awaits his return. Many eg Dalai Lama don’t even know who Tiger is.
Why not just Sirul is protecting this person:
Sirul said these unnamed people must be protected.
By whom and who are protecting the unnamed persons?
Sirul is one of those because he is copping the death sentence for the murder.
Who are the rest?
Following the trial, the impartial observer must conclude the judiciary system and police are also protective.
For instance when Altanturya’s relatives complained that immigration records of their visits have disappeared, the prosecution rather than defence moved to delete it as irrelevant and the judge was eager to concur when they should delve into the truth of the matter because it can have bearing on the case.
Why have the police and courts ignored Sirul’s serious allegation that unnamed people should have been brought to court? In the name of pursuing justice shouldn’t they have investigated Sirul’s claim?
The police and courts have shown no interest in pursuing the damaging statutory declarations by Bala and RPK but instead are hounding them.
THUS NOT JUST SIRUL WHOSE BOSS IS YOU KNOW WHO BUT THE POLICE AND LAW SYSTEM SEEMED BENT TO PROTECT THESE ENTITIES SIRUL IS ALLUDING TO. WHO COULD IT BE, NOW?
FOR SIRUL, THE POLICE AND COURTS TO PROTECT THESE UNNAMED PERSONS THEY MUST BE TRULY BIG FISH.
There can only be one big fish:
There can only be one big fish or several big fishes acting in concert who must be protected as Sirul said. Thus if you see one big fish being protected by all the concerted might of the system, it must be the big fish Sirul speaks of.
Who is the big fish that is the subject of RPK and Bala’s statutory declaration that the system has turned a determined blind eye on and even acted to quell as when Bala was pressured to recant?
How might Zul implicate?
As a person peripheral to the case, how might Zul implicate?
If he is privy to hearsay information, he may tender the hearsay conversation but that is refutable and lightweight. If he is owner of hearsay evidence and he withholds the information that would help bringing those involved to justice, he is actually an abettor and so the fact that he needs financial inducement from Anwar to come forward reflects his feckless mercenary nature without sense of civic duty.
If Zul is in possession of objective material evidence that implicates (eg taped conversations or incriminating photos or objects) then he can incriminate and that would be significant.
ZUL CAN ATTEMPT TO INCRIMINATE BY PROFFERING THE COURT EITHER REFUTABLE HEARSAY EVIDENCE OR OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE (EG TAPED CONVERSATION). IF HE IS IN POSSESSION OF SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE AND HE WITHOLDS IT FROM THE COURT, HE IS GUILTY OF ABETTING THE CRIME AND NOT BRINGING PERPETRATORS TO JUSTICE AND THE FACT THAT HE REQUIRES FINANCIAL INDUCEMENT FROM ANWAR TO DO HIS CIVIC DUTY REFLECTS HIS FECKLESS MERCENARY NATURE.
IF HE IS NOT IN POSSESSION OF ANY GENUINE EVIDENCE, WHY WOULD ANWAR WANT HIM TO FABRICATE TO IMPLICATE THE FIRST COUPLE WHEN HE IS NOT INTIMATELY INVOLVED? ANWAR WOULD BETTER SPEND HIS MONEY ELSEWHERE.
So how might Anwar induce Zul to implicate?
The only credible way for Anwar to financially induce Zul to implicate is if Zul has no evidence at all but he is paid to manufacture evidence eg Sirul did not tell him the first couple was involved but he fabricates Sirul told him so.
It is possible Anwar may attempt to do so but it is futile because such fabricated evidence is unsupported and can be refuted and cannot lead to a conviction.
WHAT ZUL IMPLIES AND IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE AVENUE IS THAT ZUL DOES NOT POSSESS ANY IMPLICATING EVIDENCE BUT ANWAR PROFFERED HIM GENEROUS REWARDS TO FABRICATE. SUCH A VENTURE IS A WASTE OF MONEY BECAUSE ZUL IS NOT INVOLVED INTIMATELY IN THE CASE AND WHATEVER EVIDENCE THAT IS FABRICATED IS NEVER IRREFUTABLE BUT CAN BE REFUTED AND THEREFORE REJECTED BY A FAIR COURT SO WHAT IS THE POINT OF ASKING ZUL TO FABRICATE?
KARPAL SINGH AND SO MANY OTHERS (RPK, BALA) HAVE BEEN TRYING TO IMPLICATE TO NO AVAIL AND SO WHAT IS SO SPECIAL ABOUT ZUL THAT ANWAR MUST SEEK HIS SERVICE? IT IS MORE CREDIBLE IF SIRUL WAS TOLD TO IMPLICATE BECAUSE WHAT HE SAYS CARRY MUCH MORE WEIGHT.
What is so special about Zul?
Zul was actually a minor member of the opposition, not ruling elite and he was not a lawyer during the trial and so what so special about him that Anwar should reward him to fabricate to incriminate the first couple when opposition big guns like Karpal Singh and RPK have been far more vocal and daring?
IF ZUL WAS ORIGINALLY FROM UMNO OR A TOP POLICE OFFICER OR A MINISTER THEN HIS FABRICATED IMPLICATION WOULD BE MORE SIGNIFICANT. ISN’T IT SILLY THAT ANWAR SHOULD PAY A MINOR UNDERLYING TO IMPLICATE HIS POLITICAL ENEMIES WHEN HIS TOP GUNS ARE DOING SO FOR FREE?
Karpal & RPK also paid by Anwar?
And since Zul is a puppet paid by Anwar, by extension RPK, Bala and Karpal too are paid to falsely implicate the first couple?
In that case why is Sirul saying he is a scapegoat sacrificed to protect people who should have been questioned but were never brought to court?
Atheists are believers who hate God:
There is an objective definition for atheist and it is someone who does not believe in the existence of God not believers who hate God. Thus if you condition yourself to perceive this is the true definition of atheist, you are training yourself to exist in a false world where atheists are believers who hate God and that will end in insanity and that is never a pleasure.
Why would you hate someone you cannot see and do not relate to? If someone has harmed you and you hate him then perhaps there is a reason for your hate. If God has not related to you and has done you no harm you are mad to hate Him. Are you blaming all your woes on God when you and mankind collectively are responsible for those woes, not God?
IF YOU BLAME GOD FOR YOUR WOES OR THE WOES OF EXISTENCE HERE AND HE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE AND YOU AND MANKIND ARE FAR MORE RESPONSIBLE THEN YOU ARE HATING GOD FOR FALSE OR NO REASON AND THAT IS THE PATH TO TORMENT. IF SOMEONE HAS HARMED YOU, CAUSED YOU GRIEF THEN YOU MAY BE RIGHT TO HATE HIM BUT IF YOU HATE SOMEONE YOU CANNOT SEE AND DOES NOT RELATE TO YOU, YOU ARE PRACTICING CONTROLLED MADNESS.
FURTHER BELIEVE DENOTES FAITH AND YOU CANNOT HATE WHAT YOU HAVE FAITH IN AND SO WHAT IS SAID IS FALSE OR A LIE AND THAT TOO IS A PATH TO INSANITY.
THEIR MINDS SUFFERING AS A RESULT OF THEIR SINS, THEY LASH OUT AND SAY OUTRAGEOUS THINGS THAT MAKE NO SENSE AND WANT OTHERS TO ACCEPT OR SIMILARLY PERCEIVE.
Always malicious and deceptive:
Atheists are believers who hate God is never stated out of true understanding but stated out of false understanding with the purpose to deceive and be malicious.
How is it deceptive?
Believers are the faithful and so what is said is deceptive that the faithful hates God.
How is it malicious?
It is designed to stir unconscious conflict in others that the faithful can be hateful, that it is not their fault they hate God.
NO MATTER HOW SOFTLY OR FRIENDLY IT IS SAID WITH A SMILE, ‘ATHEISTS ARE BELEIVERS WHO HATE GOD’ IS DRIVEN BY MALICE TO DECEIVE. YOUR WHISPERED SOFTNESS IS A MATTER OF STYLE WHICH IS MEANINGLESS, ABOUT HOW YOU UTILIZE BLIND MEANINGLESS HARMFUL FORCE AND SO IT IS THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT YOU SAY THAT HAS MEANING THAT IS EITHER TRUE OR FALSE, MEANINGFUL OR MEANINGLESS, HARMFUL OR BENEFICIAL. ANYONE WHO PERCEIVES THE WAY HE SPEAKS OR DOES THINGS (HOW HE STROKES A GIRL) IS FULL OF MEANING OR GOOD IS DELUDED.
Preacher compares attacks on pope to Jewish suffering
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Attacks on the Catholic Church and Pope Benedict over a sexual abuse scandal are comparable to "collective violence" against Jews, the pontiff's personal preacher told a Vatican Good Friday service
There are two possibilities, one is that he truly perceives it as he states it in which case it may be a true perception or false perception if it is farfetched or false to perceive attacks on the pope as like Jewish persecution. Another possibility is that it is conscious or unconscious fabrication, he does not truly perceives as he stated but he is trying to absolve the pope and heap the blame on his detractors.
IF HE TRULY PERCEIVES WHAT HE STATED AS TRUE WHEN IT IS IN TRUTH FALSE THEN HE HAS FALSE PERCEPTION, HE PERCEIVES THINGS FALSELY THAT WILL END IN INSANITY. IF HE IS STATING IT NOT BECAUSE HE PERCEIVES IT IS TRUE BUT TO TAKE THE HEAT OFF THE POPE THEN THAT IS FALSIFYING THAT HAS SERIOUS KARMA SO EITHER WAY IT IS WOE.
Move over Imelda Marcos: Queen of Romance Danielle Steele owns 6,000 pairs of Louboutin heels
Even if Danielle has 6000 pairs of shoes and Imelda has 5999 pairs, why should Imelda move over? The reality is just that Danielle has 6000 pairs of shoes and Imelda 5999 pairs, what is so great about either, and so she has false perception that it has anything to do with moving over which makes owning shoes a meaningless race of who has the most just like women compare whose breasts are bigger.
WHAT IS STATED REFLECTS FALSE PERCEPTION THAT JUST BECAUSE DANIELLE HAS MORE SHOES IMELDA MUST MOVE OVER AND IT IS ABOUT STATUS CONSCIOUSNESS, WHO HAS THE MOST OR PECKING ORDER.
Obama: "I Can Go to My Right, but I Prefer My Left"
Obama himself and others do not understand that rather than exalting him, what he says indicates he is a hypocrite putting on a show to get what he wants, eg if to get elected he must act more right then he will do that.
THE MAN OF TRUTH AND UNDERSTANDING HAS NO RIGHT OR LEFT, FOR EACH OCCASION HE DISCERNS WHAT IS TRUE OR FALSE, MEANINGFUL OR MEANINGLESS, BENEFICIAL OR HARMFUL AND HE CHOOSES THE CHOICE THAT IS TRUE, MEANINGFUL AND BENEFICIAL BECAUSE WHAT IS TRUE, MEANINGFUL AND BENEFICIAL FOR SELF IS AUTOMATICALLY THE SAME FOR OTHERS. AND SO BY SAYING SO, HE IS REVEALING HIMSELF AS A FOOL WHO DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE TRUE MEANING OF WHAT HE SAYS WHICH IS TO PAINT HIM NEGATIVELY RATHER THAN POSITIVELY.
A flash in the pan:
Reading many reports and the comments by politicians you think it is great news, the US economy is on the mend but 48,000 of the new jobs were government hiring for census that may be a ruse to provide temporary employment to those in need.
So although 162,000 jobs were created, it is actually 114,000 minus census jobs.
US economy adds 162,000 jobs in March
By James Politi in New York
The US economy created 162,000 jobs last month as the unemployment rate remained unchanged at 9.7 per cent, the government said on Friday, bolstering hopes that the economic recovery is gathering steam.
Temporary hiring by the government for the census only accounted for some 48,000 new jobs in March, meaning the private sector has begun churning out new positions.
Economists had expected non-farm payrolls to grow by about 200,000 positions, but they had factored in about 80,000 in temporary census hiring.
Najib’s SMSes:
Najib did not deny the SMS exchanges between him and Shafee a prominent UMNO and Razak Baginda’s lawyer but insisted they were private and did not indicate abuse of power.
One message was that Razak Baginda will face tentative charges (even before he was charged) but all is not lost.
(There was another SMS, whether verified or not, to Baginda asking him to stay cool, he has spoken to the IGP)
Quote: “I’m seeing IGP at 11.00a.m today…matter will be solved…be cool”
Anwar spent six years for abuse of power when the police came to see him in his office (not on his invitation but by appointment) regarding allegations of homosexuality when there is no evidence he sought to suppress allegations of homosexuality.
What has charges of murder against Razak Baginda got to do with the deputy PM and why should the IGP be spoken to, does the IGP need to be involved in every murder case even if the person is high profile, an advisor to a politician?
NAJIB SAID THE SMS WERE A PRIVATE MATTER AND DENIED ABUSE OF POWER. ABUSE OF POWER MEANS USING YOUR POSITION TO EXTRACT FAVOURABLE OUTCOMES FOR YOURSELF OR PARTIES VESTED TO YOU THAT IS NOT LAWFULLY PERMITTED.
Najib denies allegations of abuse, says SMS was private
By Shannon Teoh
KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 14 - Datuk Seri Najib Razak has denied any abuse of power in relation to the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder investigations and the government's acquisition of 12 Eurocopter helicopters.
But he did not deny the text message exchanges between him and a lawyer at the heart of the allegations were genuine. He said the SMS exchanges were a private matter.
"Why do I need to comment? There is no abuse of power," the deputy prime minister said.
Malaysia Today carried a report detailing what it alleged was an exchange of text messages between Najib and Datuk Shafee Abdullah, the prominent lawyer who represented Abdul Razak Baginda, the close associate of Najib who was eventually charged with abetting two police officers in the murder of Altantuya in 2006.
In one SMS, Najib allegedly tells the lawyer that Razak — his advisor — "will face a tentative charge but all is not lost".
Malaysia Today said this message raises some questions about Najib's role in the case. "Why did he mention "tentative" charge and that "all is not lost" for RB (Razak Baginda)? How would Najib know this before Razak was charged? These are important questions which will have ramifications, not just on this case but far beyond," a posting on the website said.
However, Najib would neither confirm nor deny that the supposed SMS exchange between him and Shafee were genuine.
"It doesn't really matter. The important thing is there is no abuse of power," he said.
"No need, no need, it is private. Whatever it is, the prime minister has said enough," he continued in the same tone.
"Why should it be of major concern? The important thing is if there is abuse of power and, if you read it carefully, there is no abuse of power, period," Najib reasoned .
On the issue of the RM2.3 billion Eurocopter deal claimed by the opposition to cost more than other tenders, he merely stated that a full explanation would be given in Parliament.
"Whatever the opposition said is not true," he said dismissively. "We will give you the facts later."
Altanturya’s murder; who done it?
What objective information there is on the public record is sufficient to point the finger with certainty as to who done it.
Sirul’s statement that he was a scapegoat sacrificed to protect people (BIG FISH) who were never questioned in court indicates the person or persons were not in court (that rules out Baginda) and BIG FISH must be seen to be protected by the full might of the system and be able to call upon Sirul to not just murder but sacrifice himself as scapegoat. The system is clearly protecting someone and this protected someone is the big fish.
The motive for Altanturya’s murder points to who did it. She admitted blackmailing Razak and she made an abusive scene at his office and house demanding payment and Razak admitted Altanturya demanded money.
AND SO THE MOTIVE OF THE MURDER INVOLVED MONEY THAT ALTANTURYA TRIED TO GET FROM RAZAK BUTT HE REFUSED TO PAY AND SHE WAS KILLED BECAUSE THE PERPETRATORS THOUGHT THEY COULD GET AWAY (THEY MAY HAVE GOT AWAY WITH IT HAD IT NOT BEEN POWER PLAY WITH BADAWI THE POLICE MINISTER SEIZING THE OCCASION TO APPLY COUNTER PRESSURE ON HIS DETRACTORS OUT TO FINISH HIM OFF) TO SILENCE HER BECAUSE SHE MAY PROVE A SOURCE OF FUTURE EMBARRASSMENT AND SHE MAY HAVE UPSET SOMEONE VERY POWERFUL WITH HER PETULANT BEHAVIOR.
AND SO IF MONEY WAS AT THE HEART OF THE MURDER AND THIS MONEY WAS LINKED TO RAZAK BAGINDA BUT RAZAK WAS NOT THE BIG FISH ACCORDING TO SIRUL THEN THIS MONEY MOTIVATION MUST EXTEND THROUGH RAZAK BEYOND TO THE BIG FISH, IT IS THIS MONEY THAT ALTANTURYA WANTS FROM RAZAK THAT CONNECTS ALSO TO BIG FISH.
THERE IS AMPLE INFORMATION RAZAK BAGINDA HAS MADE MILLIONS IN COMMISSIONS ON DEFENCE PROCUREMENTS AND YOU DON’T DO THAT WITHOUT CONNECTIONS AND SO HEREIN LIES THE SOURCE OF THE MONEY ALTANTURYA IS PURSUING WHICH DOES NOT ONLY INVOLVES RAZAK BUT INVOLVES BIG FISH WHICH IS WHY BIG FISH APART FROM RAZAK WANTS TO MURDER HER.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE BIG FISH SIRUL IS ALLUDING TO MUST BE LINKED CLOSELY WITH RAZAK BAGINDA, MORE SPECIFICALLY IT IS THE SHARED WEALTH WITH RAZAK THAT ALTANTURYA IS AFTER THAT GOT HER KILLED APART FROM WHATEVER SEXUAL PECCADILLOS THAT MAY BE INVOLVED.
IT IS ASKING MONEY FROM RAZAK THAT GOT ALTANTURYA KILLED AND SHE WAS NOT KILLED SOLELY BY RAZAK BUT BY PEOPLE WHO WERE NEVER QUESTIONED IN COURT AND SO THIS MONEY THAT ALTANTURYA SOUGHT MUST LINK HER THROUGH RAZAK TO SOMEONE WHO IS A BIG FISH WHOM THE SYSTEM MUST PROTECT. WHERE DOES RAZAK MAKE HIS MILLIONS AND WHO IS THE BIG FISH WHO MAY BE PART OF MAKING THOSE MILLIONS? CERTAINLY NOT BADAWI.
TKL
Apple iPad hits shops in America
The person responsible sees, but he sees falsely that iPad hits shops in America.
Whether iPad hits shops or are on sale in shops is not a matter of semantics but true and false perception. If you perceive it as hitting the shops you may be perceiving truly or perceiving falsely that will end in insanity.
Najib: PKR is falling apart
The purpose of saying that is actually to exploit, to attack and influence the masses negatively that PKR is in disarray.
WHENEVER ANYONE SAYS SOMETHING THAT HE DID NOT VERIFY AS ACCURATE OR HE KNOWS EVEN IS FALSE, HE CONDITIONS HIMSELF TO PERCEIVE THAT PKR IS FALLING APART WHEN HE DID NOT KNOW OR KNEW IS NOT TRUE. HE TRAINS HIMSELF TO PERCEIVE FALSELY THAT IS DANGEROUS BECAUSE FALSE PERCEPTION CAN GET YOU KILLED (YOU SEE NO CAR COMING WHEN THERE IS) AND WILL ALSO END IN MAD PERCEPTION. THEREFORE IT IS NOT FOR OTHERS BUT FOR YOURSELF THAT YOU MUST GUARD THE TRUTH IN WHAT YOU SAY AS THE BUDDHA TAUGHT. UNLESS YOU TRULY SEE PKR FALL APART YOU SHOULD NOT SAY IT, NOT EVEN IN JEST AS THE BUDDHA TAUGHT.
Elvis the sexual prototype of Michael Jackson?
Michael Jackson and Elvis may share more relationship than Elvis’ daughter being Jackson’s wife.
Reports are emerging that Elvis had a voracious appetite for young girls about 14 years and at the age of 18, Natalie Wood was too old for his tastes. He was into heavy petting rather than raw sex and virginity was a turn on for Elvis whose aides used to procure young girls for him.
Michael Jackson was rumoured to be some sort of paedophile whilst Elvis has a penchant for ‘young things’.
Complicity or loyalty?
Najib’s SMSes to Shafee & Razak showed he was ‘pulling all stops’ to help his friend.
Such an action could be driven out of loyalty or it could have an element, even overriding element of complicity; that I too am at risk if you go under.
IT IS A MATTER FOR AN OBSERVER TO JUDGE WHETHER IT WAS PURE LOYALTY OR MINGLED WITH COMPLICITY THAT IS THE CASE. OBJECTIVELY, IMPARTIALLY IT IS POSSIBLE FOR ONE WITH DISCERNMENT TO DECIDE WHICH IS THE CASE. IF THERE IS COMPLICITY THEN BEARING IN MIND SIRUL’S STATEMENT THAT HE WAS A SCAPEGOAT TO PROTECT PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT QUESTIONED, THEN YOU HAVE THE ANSWER WHO THE BIG FISH SHOULD BE.
It is the wrong view or understanding of this world that if your friend is in trouble eg murdered someone and is being charged, if you pull all strings to get him off the hook, you are good, a great friend. The true view is that you are perverting the course of justice and whether the person is your great friend or spouse or son is besides the point and if you think it is relevant you have false view that will end in mad perception.
IF YOUR GREAT FRIEND OR SON IS GUILTY OF MURDER YOU NEVER PULL STRINGS TO GET HIM DISCHARGED BECAUSE YOU ARE PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE AND RATHER THAN MERIT THERE IS KARMA TO BE EXPERIENCED AS PAIN FOR YOU. IF HE IS WRONGLY ACCUSED OF MURDER THEN YOU ARE RIGHT TO PULL ALL STOPS TO ACQUIT HIM, WITHOUT KNOWING HE IS INNOCENT YOU SHOULD NOT TRY TO GET HIM ACQUITTED.
IN ADDITION, IF YOU ARE IN GOVERNMENT, IN HIGH PLACES TO INFLUENCE PROCESSES OF THE LAW AND YOU PULL STRING, YOU ARE IN ADDITION GUILTY OF ABUSE OF POWER THAT HAS FURTHER KARMA, NOT MERIT.
THE VIEW OR UNDERSTANDING IN THIS WORLD IS THAT IF A MAN PULLS ALL STOPS TO ASSIST HIS FRIEND CHARGED WITH A CRIME, HE IS GOOD AND A WONDERFUL FRIEND OR THEY SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT EXCEPT WHEN IT AFFECTS THEM NEGATIVELY. THIS IS WRONG VIEW THAT IS THE WAY TO HELL OR THE ANIMAL WOMB. ONLY IF YOU KNOW WITH CERTAINTY HE IS INNOCENT AS CHARGED WOULD YOU BE A GREAT FRIEND TO PULL ALL STOPS TO ASSIST HIM.
IF YOU ARE IN HIGH POSITION AND YOU USE IT TO ACQUIT A FRIEND WHO IS GUILTY THEN YOU ARE ABUSING YOUR POWER.
(If Anwar was the one who was sending those SMSes then rather than saying it was a private matter and not an abuse of power, his detractors would scream and ask for Anwar’s head. This is call double standards or hypocrisy).
Cardinal rejects abuse 'gossip'
A top cardinal says the Roman Catholic faithful will not be swayed by "petty gossip" about child sex abuse allegations.
This position is always driven by emotion or force never genuine understanding to defend or attack detractors. Because it is the inappropriate response, it is controlled false perception that will end in mad perception.
What is the true response to the situation?
Is it true there are sexual abuses in the church in the past and today?
If there is sexual abuse then the person of truth who is truly coming clean must ascertain and make known the full extent of past abuses and what abuses continue to be perpetrated at present. He must then make known what steps he is taking to correct past abuses, make amends and ensure that they are not repeated again.
THUS THE TRUE RESPONSE TO THE CRISIS IS TO STATE SUCH AND SUCH ARE THE ABUSES THAT OCCURRED IN THE PAST AND TODAY, SUCH AND SUCH ARE THE ACTIONS WE ARE UNDERTAKING TO RECTIFY. “WE WILL NOT BE SWAYED BY PETTY GOSSIP” IS A WRONG BIZARRE RESPONSE AND AN ATTACK ON DETRACTORS AND INDICATE REFUSAL TO COME TOTALLY CLEAN AND EVEN CONTINUED PERMISSIVENESS.
Are we having more sex than our mothers?
This is the heading for an article in a website.
There is nothing true or false about the question, it is a question that has an answer, if not by you then by God.
But it is a silly or useless question and the fact that you deem it fit to ask reflects silliness that will end in insanity.
No one has reason to ask and answer the question but it reflects emotion, fascination or curiosity that is often perverse (unwholesome) to ask and find the answer. It is morbid interest that is the drive for the question and answer to the question.
So what if you find out we are having more or less sex and by how much? Are you going to promote more sex if we are having less sex and vice versa? Of what use is asking and answering the question?
To answer the question you must do work to find out and so if it is a frivolous question you are doing something silly that will end in madness.
THUS ANYONE WHO FINDS IT INTERESTING TO FIND OUT THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS DELUDED, PERCEIVES WHAT IS SILLY IS USEFUL.
It is not the quantity but quality of sex:
Notwithstanding that it is a silly question to ask and answer, it is not so much the quantity of sex as the quality of sex that is more important. What is the point of having more sex today when it is mechanical and brutal if there is less sex but it is more pleasurable in the past and so the question betrays the mechanical force obsessed mindset of the person in worshipping more is better.
Hence the person is barking up the wrong tree headed for insanity.
So this is why US consumption is rising:
To the foolish and goats who want to beat the drum of recovery, rising US consumption is an indication of recovery but according to this article, because income remained the same, the consumption is at the expense of savings.
PEOPLE IN THE US ARE SPENDING MORE BUT NOT BECAUSE OF RECOVERY BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE SAVING LESS.
The Age of Frugality takes a holiday
Apr 1, 2010 11:40 EDT
americans | economy | frugality | spending
That whole Age of Frugality thing didn’t last long, did it?
U.S. real personal consumption grew in February at a respectable 0.3 percent clip, the fifth straight such monthly rise, a fact widely greeted as news that the recovery is on course. The fly in this tasty soup, however, is income, which in real terms didn’t increase at all, not even by one tenth of a percent.
American’s did this neat trick — spending more while earning the same — the old fashioned way: they cut back on luxuries … like saving.
Savings as a percentage of disposable personal income fell to 3.1 percent from 3.4 percent the month before and down from a recent peak of 6.4 percent in May 2009. In fact, the last time the savings rate was lower was October 2008 when a market maelstrom was convincing so many people, apparently falsely, that something rather dangerous and important was wrong with the economy. In real terms, consumption is only very slightly below where it peaked in 2007.
Dangerous logic:
Everybody loves Warren Buffett. Berkshire Hathaway - the investment vehicle run by Mr Buffett, topped a list of the best-regarded US companies
There is dangerous false logic here and most people do not see and understand it is so.
The person is concluding that everybody loves Warren Buffet merely because Berkshire is the best regarded company.
Just because it is best regard does not mean everybody loves Buffet and this false logic can one day get him killed and even consign him to perdition.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE A PERSON WITH TRUE UNDERSTANDING CAN MAKE SUCH CONCLUSIONS.
The bliss of stopping thinking:
Early this morning (about 5.30am) in the course of meditating, I became aware that my thinking had stopped in a sustained effortless manner and I was aware how peaceful, self assured it was compared to the previous thinking state. Thus meditating I later fell asleep and when I awoke at 7 am, I was refreshed more than I usually was, and now as I go along with my daily work in the morning un-harassed with a paucity of thought as I go along, the ‘no thinking state’ is for one who has experienced the switching off of thinking, an incomparably superior state to exist it.
THERE IS SUCH A STATE OF THE MIND CALLED THE NO THINKING STATE AND IT CAN BE TRAINED JUST LIKE PEOPLE GO TO THE GYM TO BUILD THEIR MUSCLES SUCH THAT YOU CONSISTENTLY AND EFFORTLESS ATTAIN IT.
TO THE PERSON WHO HAS TASTED THE NO THINKING STATE, IT IS AN INCOMPARABLY WOE FREE JOYFUL STATE OF EXISTENCE COMPARED TO THE CONSTANTLY THINKING STATE. NOT ONLY THAT, ACCORDING TO THE BUDDHA IF YOU DWELL MUCH IN NO THINKING AND PERFECT IT, TWO ETERNITIES OR AGES IN HEAVEN IS YOUR NEXT LIFESPAN.
IF YOU ARE EMOTIONAL, STYLISH, GREEDY FOR GAINS AND ANXIOUS ABOUT LOSSES IN THIS WORLD, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO ATTAIN SERENITY OF MIND AND BODY LET ALONE THE CESSATION OF THINKING.
IN ORDER TO STOP THINKING YOU MUST LEARN OR CONDITION YOURSELF NOT TO USE UNNECESSARY FORCE IN YOUR SPEECH AND ACTIONS AND THAT MEANS NO USE OF FORCE TO PROLONG SYLLABLES, CHANGE SPEED AND LOUDNESS. IT IS THE ADDITIONAL UNNECESSARY FORCE ACCOMPANYING THINKING AND SPEECH THAT MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE TO STOP.
DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE IMPORTANCE OF PAYING ATTENTION TO PRACTICE NOT STRETCHING SYLLABLES, CHNAGE SPEED AND LOUDNESS. IT IS THE KEY TO SERENITY OF MIND AND BODY THAT LEADS TO ONE AGE IN HEAVEN AND IF YOU CAN FURTHER TRAIN YOURSELF TO STOP THINKING, THAT IS TWO ETERNITIES IN HEAVEN.
Nothing is worth thinking:
Thinking is actually a prison of suffering that is controlled and will lapse into loss of control and madness.
Nothing, not anything in material wealth, fame & sensate pleasure is worth the thinking that is necessary to obtain them. The incomparable release from suffering, self assuredness and unification of mind that comes with the non-thinking state far outshines whatever gains of the thinking state just as the sun far outshines the moon.
JUST AS THE SUN OUTSHINES THE MOON, THE NON THINKING STATE FAR OUTSHINES THE THINKING STATE AS A MODE OF EXISTENCE AND IT ACCORDS THAT BEING CONSUMMATE IN ITS ATTAINMENT TWO AGES OR EONS IN HEAVEN ACCORDING TO THE BUDDHA.
Thus if you think thinking is wonderful, meritorious, see nothing wrong with thinking ceaselessly restlessly about this and that, you have wrong view or you are deluded that is the way to suffering not safety.
NOTHING IS WORTH THINKING, IT IS FAR BETTER TO CLOSE SHOP AND STOP THINKING RATHER THAN PERSIST TO THINK AND THINK ABOUT ANY PROBLEM THAT ADDICTS YOU TO THINKING.
Singapore’s DNA:
SINGAPORE: Singapore's DNA to be a young city-state is the key that will enable the country to thrive.
Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean made this point as he addressed more than 250 undergraduates at a forum on Monday.
Singapore is not a biological being and has no DNA and so if you speak of DNA you are conditioning yourself and others to perceive falsely that Singapore can have DNA that will end in mad perception for you and you have karma for conditioning others in false perception.
SPEAKING OF DNA IS FALSE AND COPIED FROM OTHERS BECAUSE IT IS PERCEIVED AS STYLISH AND SO THE PERSON IS A REHASHING ROBOT COPYING OR APING OTHERS WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THAT IT IS FALSE PERCEPTION THAT WILL END IN MAD PERCEPTION AND THERE IS FURTHER KARMA FOR ENCOURAGING OTHERS TO SIMILARLY FALSELY PERCEIVE.
Tiger Woods: "I Need to Be a Better Man"
This is a consciously or unconsciously calculated statement that is totally unnecessary and only necessary for show or self gain.
Why should you need to tell others you need to be a better man except that you are beholden to the public, your future riches depend on them and so you must speak to show you are contrite.
IT IS FAR MORE DIFFICULT TO BE TRULY A BETTER MAN THAN TO SAY IT AND IT IS TOTALLY UNNECESSARY AND FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION TO SAY SO TO APPEASE AND BECAUSE IT IS TOTALLY UNNECESSARY EXCEPT TO DO SO IF YOU TRULY INTEND WHAT YOU SAY, IT IS CONTROLLED INSANITY TO SAY SO AND IF YOU SAY YOU NEED TO AND THEN YOU FAIL TO, THAT WILL LEAD TO DISAPPOINTMENT OR ANGER THAT YOU HAVE FAILED THAT CONDITIONS YOURSELF TO A TENDENCY TO FAIL THAT WILL END IN MADNESS.
BE A BETTER MAN, IT IS A MATTER FOR YOURSELF ONLY AND NOBODY ELSE, DON’T TALK ABOUT IT AND SET YOURSELF UP FOR JUDGEMENT BY SELF AND OTHERS.
Why Tiger will win the masters:
This foolish man thinks he can give you the reasons why Tiger will win the Masters.
It is impossible by a process of reasoning or thinking to reason or predict that Tiger will win the Masters, even if Tiger played phenomenally, there is an element of luck or chance, then you are deluded and headed for insanity.
WHAT HE IS SAYING MEANS THAT HE CAN GIVE YOU THE REASONS WHY TIGER WILL WIN THE MASTERS. THAT IS DELUSION BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DO. WHY TIGER HAS A GOOD CHANCE TO WIN IS REASONABLE.
Correction: US$420,000:
The agreed fee paid to Apco is US$420,000 not US$420 million.
All is not lost:
Quote: In one SMS, Najib allegedly tells the lawyer that Razak — his advisor — "will face a tentative charge but all is not lost".
All is not lost is a presumptuous admission of guilt. If it was lost, Baginda would be convicted. Why would Najib jump to such swift conclusion when if Razak is innocent as he is supposed to be and in a country where innocents who have friends in high places have nothing to fear why would Razak be fearful of conviction?
FEW OR ANY WOULD DARE BRING FALSE CHARGES AGAINST THOSE WITH FRIENDS IN HIGH PLACES AND SO IF RAZAK IS INNOCENT IT MEANS THERE IS SOMEONE ELSE WHO IS GUILTY AND WHY WOULD HE OR NAJIB BE FEARFUL THAT ALL WILL BE LOST AND RAZAK SHOULD BE REASSURED THAT ALL IS NOT LOST?
When was a big shot last wrongly charged?
All the big fishes (politicians or businessmen eg Anwar) who have been wrongly charged are those who have fallen out of favour or fallen foul of the ruling elite.
IT WILL BE DIFFICULT IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO NAME THE LAST BIG FISH WHO WAS WRONGLY CHARGED (INNOCENT AS CHARGED). IT IS THE POLICE AND ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO DECIDES TO BRING CHARGES.
THUS IF RAZAK BAGINDA WAS INNOCENT AS CHARGED, HE MAY BE UNIQUE.
When would police charge a crony?
Police will only charge a crony of the ruling elite if it is true or they are pretty certain it is true and it is unavoidable (circumstances force them to make charges). If charges are avoidable or police are not sure it is true, it is unheard of that police would proceed to charge except if there is power play or political motives behind it eg one political faction attacking another, even then it is likely the charges are valid.
THUS IF YOU SEE POLICE CHARGE SOMEONE WHO HAS CONNECTIONS TO PEOPLE IN HIGH OFFICE AND THAT PERSON IS NOT IN DISGRACE LIKE ANWAR WAS, POLICE MUST BE PRETTY CERTAIN OF THEIR CHARGES OR THE CHARGES MUST BE BOTH TRUE AND UNAVOIDABLE OR IT IS TRUE AND THERE ARE POLITICAL MOTIVES TO FILE CHARGES. IT IS UNHEARD OF, UNPRECEDENTED FOR POLICE EVEN THROUGHOUT THE WORLD TO WRONGLY CHARGE A CRONY OF A BIGWIG EVEN IF IT IS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED UNLESS THAT BIGWIG HAS FALLEN OUT OF FAVOR. ANWAR AND HIS CRONIES WERE FALSELY CHARGED BUT THAT WAS BECAUSE BY THEN ANWAR WAS NO LONGER PART OF THE RULING ELITE BUT DESPISED.
Anwar was blamed for fabricating this Altanturya mess to topple his enemy but Anwar does not have that power and it may be internecine power play that is the cause. Badawi the police minister was under a lot of pressure to quit after the election debacle and this may be a ‘golden’ opportunity for him to sock it back to his detractors.
Why police know the charges are true:
In this case, police must know the charges are true because the two charged with murder are police officers and it is likely if not certain that behind the scenes they would have confessed they did it and for what reasons and so it is no act of genius that police know the truth or falsity of this charge.
Why it is impossible police will charge wrongly in this case:
Because the two accused are police officers, they would not have admitted the killings if they were not involved directly or indirectly (as scapegoats), the police must know who did the killing and for what reasons. Because police should know who did it because police officers are involved and would have secretly confessed, it is unthinkable that they should charge Razak, a person with connections in high places, if he was not involved in some significant way.
How come no one reasons like me?
By a process of true logical deduction, I have come to a conclusion what is a certainty without hearing from the horse’s mouth.
I have said that it is unheard of for police throughout the world to charge someone who is a crony of the ruling elite unless it is true and unavoidable and therefore if you see a crony of someone in high places being charged it must be true. I have said that in this case the police should know if their charge is true because those involved are police officers who would have confided the truth to them and knowing the truth it is impossible police will lay false charges on Razak when he is a crony of the ruling elite.
HOW COME NO ONE REASONS LIKE ME IN THIS WORLD? DOES WHAT I SAY MAKE SENSE OR IS IT RUBBISH? IF IT IS THE TRUTH THEN HOW COME NO ONE SEES THE TRUTH LIKE THIS? PEOPLE LAMENT THAT THE TRUTH MAY NEVER COME OUT, THEY ARE IN DOUBT AND UNCERTAINTY AS TO WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE BUT BY A PROCESS OF DEDUCTION THE TRUTH IS REVEALED TO THE DISCERNING.
Altanturya’s murder is a very simple case:
Far from complicated, solving the Altanturya murder is very simple.
If the police officers charged with murder did not do it, they would not have admitted it or permit themselves to be charged and it is impossible police would charge fellow officers falsely with such a serious crime.
Thus the fact that police officers were charged with murder means they must be connected in some significant way with her murder and should therefore know who ordered and killed her and for what reasons.
Being fellow officers, police must know the truth of the case and it is impossible police knowing Razak was not involved significantly would charge him with abetment because he has connections in high places and would scream if he was innocently charged.
THUS THE TRUTH IS THERE IN FRONT OF PEOPLE ALL THE TIME BUT THEY CANNOT SEE IT AND ARE BEFUDDLED AS TO EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED WHEN THEY CAN PIECE IT ALL TOGETHER AND GET THE ANSWER WITHOUT HEARING FROM THE HORSE’S MOUTH.
The Wira is a dangerous car without virtue:
My mechanic left his Wira at my disposal when he took my car for service.
Although the Wira is aging and in bad condition its characteristics are likely to be representative.
The brakes were spongy or mushy with little effect initially and you have the feeling there is little or no reserves should you need to stop in a hurry.
The steering has no feel and the car tends to plough straight when cornering.
There is little or no ride to speak of, it just approximately rides the bumps of the road.
The engine is weak and there is a significant delay before a feeble response to power demands and it vibrates badly when idling.
The car is so devoid of pleasure in driving and I feel unsafe that there is reluctance to use it even for short trips and I am glad to put it to rest than drive it.
THE WIRA IS A POOR CAR DYNAMICALLY AND STRUCTURALLY & REFLECTS DERELICTION OF RESPONSIBILITY BECAUSE NO MATTER HOW CHEAP, THE CAR SHOULD BE DECENT. GIVEN A CHOICE I WOULD TAKE A SECOND HAND CITROEN OR PEUGEOT ANYTIME.
“Elementary my dear Watson”
Many murders have remained unsolved in history and there is no necessity to solve Altanturya’s murder and if the true murderer was unknown to the police, why should the police pin the blame on the present cast especially bearing in mind it is their fellow officers who are being charged for murder and the considerable almost fatal publicity it caused the deputy PM.
WHY SHOULD THE POLICE CHARGE ITS FELLOW OFFICERS WITH ALTANTURYA’S MURDER IF THEY ARE NOT CERTAIN OR DO NOT KNOW WHO KILLED HER? JUDGING FROM THE NEAR FATAL POLITICAL FALLOUT AND THE SUFFERING OF THE TWO ACCUSED OFFICERS POLICE WOULD BE MAD TO HAVE PROCEED WITH THIS TRIAL IF THE POLICEMEN WERE IN TRUTH INNOCENT.
IF THE POLICEMEN WERE INVOLVED IN THE MURDER THEN SURELY THEY WILL KNOW WHO KILLED HER AND FOR WHAT REASONS. THUS KNOWING THEY WOULD NOT HAVE CHARGED RAZAK IF HE WAS INNOCENT. IF SIRUL SAID THERE ARE THOSE WHO HAVE NOT BEEN QUESTIONED IN COURT IT MEANS THESE OTHERS MUST BE CONNECTED TO RAZAK.
What is so special about Altanturya?
What is so special about Altanturya (is she the queen or daughter of the PM) that her murder cannot be left unsolved if in truth the police do not know or are uncertain as to her killers?
Even if she was someone special, what is the point of wrongly charging and convicting someone of her murder especially bearing in mind two of their own officers are involved and the negative publicity to people in high places?
If you agree there is nothing special about her that her murder must be solved even if by hook or crook then it would be absurd for police to go out of the way to charge two of its officers and an analyst with connection in high places when they did not know or are not certain those charged are involved.
Not possible two cops wrongly charged:
It is not possible the two cops were wrongly charged, police made a big mistake and they were totally uninvolved because Sirul made a detailed graphic confession in which he admitted killing her that night.
That confession may be coerced, totally false or only partially true but why would the police coerce its fellow officers to admit to a murder they did not commit unless it is to cover up for someone. And you don’t cover up for someone you do not know but you cover up for someone you know.
SO WHICHEVER WAY YOU VIEW IT, EVEN IF SIRUL’S CONFESSION IS BOGUS OR COERCED, ITS INTENTION WOULD BE TO TAKE BLAME FOR THE MURDER ON BEHALF OF THE ACTUAL KILLER AND YOU ONLY TAKE THE BLAME SO AS TO PROTECT SOMEONE YOU KNOW NOT SOMEONE YOU DO NOT KNOW.
THUS SIRUL AND AZILAH MUST BE INVOLVED AND WERE CORRECTLY CHARGED AND IF THEY WERE CORRECTLY CHARGED THEY MUST KNOW WHO ELSE WAS INVOLVED AND IT IS LIKELY IF NOT CERTAINLY THEY WOULD HAVE CONFIDED IT TO THEIR FELLOW POLICE OFFICERS AND THUS KNOWING, IF RAZAK IS NOT INVOLVED, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE CHARGED HIM WITH ABETMENT BEARING IN MIND HIS CONNECTION TO THE RULING ELITE.
Report No : 7380/06
Station : Travers
Name : Sirul Azhar bin Haji Umar
IC No : RF125591
Race : Malay
Date/Place of Birth : 29-1-1971
Age : 35 years male
Occupation : Police officer
Address of workplace : UTK, Bukit Aman
Name of father : Haji Omar bin Haji Hassan
Address of father : Deceased
Recording Officers : Insp Nom Phot a/l Prack Dit at Office D6, 3rd Floor, Bukit Aman on 9th November 2006 at 1307 afternoon.
Interpreter-from-to-
On 19th (sic) November 2006 I was asked by the investigating officer K/ASP Tony Anak Lunggan to record the statement of a Malay inmate named Sirul Azhar Bin Haji Omar Kp RF 125591. The inmate was then brought to me and I ordered the release of his handcuffs.
I then interviewed the inmate who appeared to be proficient in Malay. I also found the inmate in good health. I then read out the warning under Section 113(1)(a)(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to the inmate as follows ;-
IT IS MY RESPONSIBILTIY TO WARN YOU THAT YOU ARE NOT OBLIGED TO SAY ANYTHING OR TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
BUT WHATEVER YOU SAY WHETHER IN ANSWER TO A QUESTION OR NOT SHALL BE GIVEN AS A STATEMENT.
S. Do you understand the warning that has been read and explained to you?
J. Yes I understand.
S. Do you have any questions about the warning?
J. No.
S. Do you want to give a statement?
J. Yes I want to give a statement.
S. What do you want to tell me?
J. As a member of the Special Action Unit (UTK) on an undetermined date 5 or 6 days before the incident on 19th October 2006 while I was in my office I received a telephone call from Tuan Azilah (Azilah) the officer above me requesting that I meet him in Central market. I could not meet him at the time because I was together with Tuan Khairy as his driver.
At that time, I was driving Tuan Khairy to deliver hampers in Selayanga and Batu Caves. On my way to there roughly after 12 noon I received another call from Azilah who asked me where I was and I told Azilah I may be late coming back as I was assisting an officer and I replied I would call him back after completing my duties.
At around 3.00pm, after dropping off the officer at the office in Bukit Aman, Azilah telephoned me again and told me to meet him in Central Market.
At about 3.15pm I met Azilah at Central Market. He instructed me to observe Malaya Hotel where the woman who was disturbing the businessman [sic] stayed. Azilah also informed me there were three women staying in a room on the 8th floor, the number of which I am unable to recollect.
After that I went together with Azilah in my car, a Satria bearing registration number WEA 4717 to look for Malaya Hotel. On the way there, Azilah talked about a reward of between RM50,000 and RM100,000 if the case was settled. Azilah and I however failed to locate the hotel after circling the area many times.
After failing to locate the hotel, Azilah and I returned to Central Market and while we were there, Azilah asked an artist at Central Market for directions to Malaya Hotel.
The artist, who was Malay, drew a plan of the location of Malaya Hotel .
After that Azilah and I walked towards Malaya Hotel. We reached Malaya Hotel at 4.00pm.
When we arrived at Malaya Hotel, Azilah invited me to go to the 8th floor of the hotel. After we reached the 8th floor Azilah showed me the room that was occupied by the woman who was disturbing Razak.
While on the 8th floor, Azilah asked me to "shoot to kill" all three women in the hotel room and asked that I stay in any one of the rooms on the 8th or 7th floor or any other floor with all lodging expenses borne by Azilah.
I informed Azilah that I would not be able to do it because of the presence of CCTV (closed circuit television cameras).
After that Azilah and I took the stairs to the 7th floor to find a suitable room to stay. After looking at the room, I found it to be unsuitable and Azilah and I returned to Central Market.
Upon arriving at Central Market, Azilah ordered me to use my car and drive to Razak's residence to observe the residence. At about 4.30pm Azilah and I were driving when Azilah pointed Razak's residence to me.
I then drove my car and reached a petrol station near the Puduraya area. Azilah filled the petrol tank with RM30 worth of petrol. After filling the petrol, Azilah and I drove back to Razak's residence in Damansara Heights.
After observing Razak's residence, Azilah and I returned to Central Market to enable Azilah to get his car.
After dropping Azilah at Central Market I went to the UTK office in Bukit Aman. After that I did not contact Azilah again.
On 19th October 2006 at about 8.30pm while I was at home in Kota Damansara, Azilah contacted me via his mobile phone and asked me to go to Razak's house immediately. Azilah also mentioned there was a Chinese woman who was causing a commotion in front of Razak's house.
I was ready at about 8.40pm and drove my jeep bearing registration number CAC 1883 towards Razak's house in Damansara Heights.
Upon arriving in Damansara Heights, I stopped my jeep a distance away from Razak's house. After parking my jeep, I walked towards the entrance of Razak's house.
When I arrived in front of Razak's house I saw Azilah together with a Malay woman in front of the house. There was a car and Azilah was outside the car and the Malay woman was inside the car.
I saw a Chinese woman talking to an Indian man whom I did not recognize and also a Chinese taxi driver who was seated inside the taxi and security guards inside Razak's house.
I then entered the car which was a red Proton Wira and sat in the passenger's seat. While I was seated in the car, I saw Azilah persuading the Chinese woman with the help of the Malay woman to sit in the same red Proton Wira Aeroback where I was seated.
The Chinese woman entered the car and sat behind me while the Malay woman also entered the car and sat behind Azilah who was in the driver's seat.
While Azilah, the Chinese woman, the Malay woman and I were seated in the car, the Chinese taxi driver came and asked for the taxi fare from the Chinese woman. Azilah gave him RM50 but the Chinese man demanded an additional RM150 because he said he had to make several trips. Azilah then gave the Chinese man RM100.
After that Azilah drove the Wira car towards my jeep. Upon reaching my jeep, I alighted from the car and drove my jeep out of Damansara Heights towards Kuala Lumpur. During the journey, Azilah called and said we would have to transfer the Chinese woman to my jeep and said that we should look for a spot.
When I arrived at Jalan Duta I stopped my jeep by the side of the road and got down from the jeep and I asked Azilah whether the spot was suitable to do the transfer. Azilah replied that it was not suitable and suggested Bukit Aman instead.
I then went ahead to Bukit Aman followed by Azilah closely behind and arrived at Bukit Aman at about 10.00pm.
Upon reaching Bukit Aman, I stopped my car at the back of the Bukit Aman officers' mess and Azilah together with the Malay woman brought the Chinese woman to my jeep. I noticed the woman was refusing to get in while being pushed into the back of my jeep.
After the Chinese woman got into my jeep, Azilah entered my jeep and sat in the passenger seat. I drove out of Bukit Aman followed by the red Proton Aeroback which was driven by the Malay woman.
I could no longer see the red Proton Aeroback driven by the Malay woman once we had passed the entrance to Bukit Aman.
Along the journey, Azilah asked me to find a place to "shoot to kill" the Chinese woman. Before arriving at Jalan Duta I noticed the back left tyre of my jeep was punctured. I drove through the Smart Tag lane at the toll booth and stopped on the left hand side of the road to change the tyre.
While I was changing the tyre, I noticed two Road Transport Department (JPJ) officers on duty but I continued to change the tyre with Azilah's help.
After changing the tyre, I drove to my house in Kota Damansara to take the explosives that I had kept there. After taking the explosives I got into the jeep and drove to Sungai Buloh and Kuala Selangor before arriving at the Punchak Alam forest reserve at about 11.00pm.
At the Punchak Alam forest reserve as I was bringing the jeep to a stop, I felt a pain in my stomach and got out of the jeep and relieved myself (defecated) not far away from the jeep. After I had relieved myself, I went back into the jeep and at the same time I saw Azilah outside the jeep carrying a bag containing an M5 weapon and silencer from the jeep that was located at the foot rest of the passenger seat and gave it to me ordering me to "shoot to kill" the Chinese woman who was inside the jeep.
After asking for the Chinese woman's articles, the Chinese woman surrendered her jewellery. She then asked to be allowed to urinate. Azilah brought her down from the jeep and I saw the Chinese woman urinating by the side of the jeep.
After urinating, she saw the weapon that I was holding. I saw that she was in a state of fear and she pleaded not to kill her and said she was expecting.
At the same time, Azilah wrestled the woman to the ground and I could see that she had fallen and was in an unconscious state. I opened fire towards the left side of the woman's head.
After the Chinese woman was shot, Azilah removed all her clothes and I took a black garbage bag and Azilah put all the Chinese woman's clothes into the bag.
After putting all her clothes into the bag, Azilah noticed movements in the Chinese woman's arm and ordered me to fire another shot but the gun did not fire. I then emptied the weapon and loaded the gun again and fired another shot at the same area which was the left side of the woman's head. I then took a black plastic garbage bag and with Azilah's help put the bag over the Chinese woman's head to prevent blood from spilling.
After that I lifted the hands of the victim while Azilah lifted the legs of the victim and we carried the victim into the woods. Azilah then carried the bag containing the explosives and handed it to me. I took the explosives and attached it to the victim's head while Azilah attached the explosives on the victim's legs up to the abdomen.
Azilah then pulled the long wire towards the jeep and I altered the position of the jeep so that it faced away from the woods and drove the jeep about 15 meters from the victim.
After the detonation of the explosives, I pulled the excess wire into the jeep and left the scene and headed towards Bukit Aman.
Azilah and I arrived at Bukit Aman at approximately 12 midnight. At the UTK office, Azilah handed me approximately RM430. After that I had a bath and changed clothes and put the clothes that I wore during the incident together with the victim's clothes into a plastic bag.
After that, I entered the jeep and drove the jeep to a rubbish container in the Bukit Aman area near a construction site. I threw some of the victim's belongings and the wire that was used to detonate the explosives together with the empty bag that contained the explosives into the container.
After throwing the things, I drove the jeep out of Bukit Aman and head towards my house in Kota Damansara. I threw the victim's clothes and my own clothes along the way to my house.
I arrived at home at about 1.00am and to lay down to rest and slept. After that I did not have any contact with Azilah until I was sent back from Pakistan and was arrested.
S. To whom did the MP5 weapon and silencer belong to?
J. The weapon belonged to the UTK Bukit Aman and was for my use.
S. What do you mean by the word "jimat"?
J. Jimat means "shoot to kill".
S. Are you telling the truth.
J. Yes it is the truth.
The statement was read back to Sirul Azhar Bin Haji Omar KPT/Paspot RF 125591.
S. Do you wish to make any amendments or additions to your statement after the statement has been read to you?
J. No
S. Are you giving this statement voluntarily?
J. Yes
The recording of the statement ended on 9th November 2006 at 1635 hrs
No comments:
Post a Comment