No, it was not Najib

Weather: Clear
Temperature: 37 c (Hooooot!)

If you think M Night Shyamala’s “The 6th Sense” is good, you have not read about the recent news in Malaysia. What happening now in Malaysia are much better than movies. According to Mark Twain, “Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't.”

And Malaysians are not sure what the truth is and who to believe any more.

24 hours after making the explosive revelation, the private investigator today retracted his statement. He now has a new lawyer and a new statutory declaration. He claimed that he made the first statutory declaration under duress.

Some of my friends were very angry at this private investigator. They said his retraction of his earlier statement was really “potong steam”. Just when we thought we had Najib’s ass in our pocket, the bugger said he was forced to implicate Najib. Really anti-climax lar...

Yes, I am not very happy with this private investigator. Yesterday he said yes; today he said no. One of his statutory declarations must be false. Either way, he is a liar. But, I will not simply dismiss him as a liar and move on. Such a view is too simplistic. We should study the chain of events as a whole and draw some inferences. The show is not over yet.

Yesterday at the press conference, the private investigator dropped a bombshell. He shocked the whole world by hinting that our DPM had anal sex with the Mongolian lady. Later, it was reported that he was brought to the police station for "investigation". We did not know what actually took place in the police station, but my guess is the police did not throw him a kenduri. He must have had a “great time” with the police officers.

24 hours later, the same private investigator came out with a new statutory declaration. In his new statutory declaration, he kept most of his previous stories but specifically deleted all the paragraphs that made references to the DPM. Wow… My question is: Why would a reasonable man of sound mind do that? Can you smell something fishy here? I do.

Imagine this. One day, Ah Kow rushed into the kopitiam and told everyone this:

“I wanted to buy rice. I walked to the nearest shop with RM3 in my pocket. I was very happy because I was going to be a father soon. I was also wondering if I had enough money to buy a packet of sugar. Suddenly, I saw Ah Meng. Ah Meng was holding a broomstick. Ah Meng’s wife was crying loudly. But I continued walking. I bought rice with RM2 and I used the balance RM1 to buy sugar. This is my story.”

Hours later, you saw Ah Kow being brought into a small hut by a group of Ah Meng's friends.

The next day, Ah Kow quietly walked to the kopitian and said this:

“Hi, everyone! I made mistakes in my previous statement. I wanted to buy rice. I walked to the nearest shop with RM3 in my pocket. I was very happy because I was going to be a father soon. I was also wondering if I had enough money to buy a packet of sugar. But, I did NOT see Ah Meng. Ah Meng was NOT holding a broomstick. Ah Meng's wife was NOT crying loudly. I continued walking. I bought rice with RM2 and I used the balance RM1 to buy sugar. This is my story.”

Can you sense something wrong here? Why did Ah Kow repeat his whole story but specifically emphasize that he did not see Ah Meng?

The reasonable inference any reasonable man would reasonably make is: Ah Meng must have done something to Ah Kow, something that is not so nice.

Now, back to our Najib's case. The private investigator's new statutory declaration states:

"I wish to expressly state that at no material time did (Abdul) Razak (Abdullah) Baginda inform me that he was introduced to Altantuya Shaariibuu by a VIP and at no material time did Razak Baginda inform me that Datuk Seri Najib had a sexual relationship with Altantuya Shaaribu and that she was susceptible to anal intercourse.

"At no material time did Razak Baginda inform me that Datuk Seri Najib instructed Razak Baginda to look after Altantuya Shaariibuu as he did not want her to harass him since he was the Deputy Prime Minister.

"At no material time did Razak Baginda and or Altantuya Shaariibuu inform me that Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, together with Razak Baginda and Altantuya Shaariibuu, had met and all been together at a dinner in Paris;

"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;

"At no time whatsoever did Razak Baginda and/or Altantuya Shaariibuu inform me that Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak met with Altantuya Shaariibuu in Singapore;

"At no time whatsoever did Altantuya Shaariibuu inform me that she wanted me to arrange to see Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak;

"At no time did I tell the police during the course of their investigations about any relationship between Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak andAltantuya Shaariibuu as no such relationship existed to my knowledge. Accordingly, the statement I signed before the police is complete;

"At no time did Razak Baginda inform me that he had sent Datuk Seri Najib an SMS the evening before he was arrested; and

"At no time did Razak Baginda inform me that Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak had sent him an SMS on the day of his arrest to the effect that he was going to see the IGP (Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan) that day and that the matter should be resolved and for Razak Baginda to remain calm."

See my point? Isn't that TOO obvious? Again, my question remains: Will Najib sue this private investigator?

2007 is Tahun Melawat Malaysia; 2008 is definitely Tahun Meliwat Malaysia. : )


.