No one has answered the million ringgit question yet: is the SMS exchange on the Altantuya murder case between Datuk Seri Najib Razak and a prominent lawyer authentic?
If it is not, then it should be put down as yet another move by critics of the government to discredit the man slated to be the next prime minister of Malaysia; dismissed as another desperate attempt to implicate Najib in the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu.
If it is authentic, then the disclosure raises a whole host of questions. How did private and confidential SMS records of two individuals reach the public domain? Was Najib interested in the case because his advisor Abdul Razak Baginda was a central figure? Was there something sinister or inappropriate in any of the exchanges between Najib and Datuk Shafee Abdullah?
Did Najib use his position as the DPM to interfere in the progress of the murder investigation or did he merely make a few telephone calls to find out the gravity of the situation facing his friend?
Nobody in the government has said anything since the SMS exchange was posted on Malaysia Today, the website owned by Raja Petra Kamarudin, the blogger who is being detained under the Internal Security Act.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s attempt to protect his number two was clumsy.
At a press conference yesterday, a journalist from a local daily broke the monotony of questions on the economy by asking the Prime Minister his thoughts on the SMS. Abdullah, either because he did not catch the question or because he wanted to stay on message and only speak on the economy, ignored the reporter. Later on, he walked up to the reporter and sought a clarification on the question.
The reporter elaborated a bit more on the SMS exchange between Najib and Shafee. The press conference was reconvened and Abdullah defended Najib.
“I can’t believe Datuk Seri Najib wants to abuse power. If he’s the one who is inclined to abuse power, then how could he be my successor? I believe in him, I believe he’s a good person and he would be a good prime minister, “ said Abdullah.
The problem with this stout defence of his deputy is that it does not answer the most important question swirling out there today: is the SMS exchange between Najib and Shafee authentic?
Continuing silence on this matter will not help Najib or the Abdullah administration. Continued silence on this matter will also create paranoia on the strength of firewalls and security measures of Malaysia’s telcos.
the taxi driver says
Friday, 31 October 2008
On 11th October, Malaysia Today carried a post entitled ‘Abuse of power by the Deputy Prime Minister’ that laid out a series of sms’es alleged to have passed between Najib and senior lawyer Shafee Abdullah in relation to Razak Baginda’s arrest and remand in the days before Baginda was charged.
Najib was publicly asked to comment about these sms’es and he never denied the authenticity of the same.
Now, there’s one other exchange of sms’es, this time allegedly between Razak Baginda and Najib. I do not recall Najib himself having ever addressed or denied or admitted the correctness or otherwise of these sms’es directly, as he did with the series of sms’es referred to in the MT posting.
I am referring to the 2 sms’es mentioned at paragraphs 51 and 52 of the first statutory declaration of private investigator Balasubramaniam. Let me reproduce below both paragraphs 51 and 52 of that first statutory declaration.
51. On the day Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested, I was with him at his lawyers office at 6.30am. Abdul Razak Baginda informed us that he had sent Najib Razak an SMS the evening before as he refused to believe he was to be arrested, but had not received a response.
52. Shortly thereafter, at about 7.30am, Abdul Razak Baginda received an SMS from Najib Razak and showed, this message to both myself and his lawyer. This message read as follows: “ I am seeing IGP at 11am today … matter will be solved … be cool”.
Like all of you, I am aware of Bala’s second statutory declaration contradicting the first, but we also have to acknowledge that the circumstances surrounding the making and public announcement of the second statutory declaration, and the subsequent disappearance of the maker of both, might make it prudent for us to defer adjudging which of the two statutory declarations narrates the truth until such time that Bala is available to fully disclose andexplain the circumstances surrounding the making of both statutory delcarations.AS THE TAXI DRIVER SAW…ALTANTUYA’S LAST HOURS.
Her last journey starts at night when she gives a slip to bala’s men watching her movements, she took her last taxi ride from hotel Malaya to bagindas house. What could have been the topic of her discussion with the taxi driver? Was he the one who took down the car registration no, which was used in a grab at bagindas house?.
What she told about own P.I WHO abandon her at the last moment, she was helpless? As the taxi stop she was grabbed and bundled into that car and driven off. If only they had waited, for the taxi go then they had grabbed her, they could have pull off the perfect encounter.
With her name erased from the immigration entries, she will be in the missing persons list. But god was on her side that day, because she had to be scarified, in order to bring to open the evil forces that are planning to rule this country. But to PAS PRESIDENT it just a murder why we have to make it an issue out of it?
The taxi driver went back to the stand at hotel Malaya to be confronted by the victim’s cousin sister to whom he gave the vital informations. The Rest is history…………………………


ABOVE: Lawyer Zulkifli Nordin briefing newsmen on what happened in court today

Lawyers Zulkifli Nordin and Kamarul Hisham, representing C/Insp Azilah Hadri, 30, and Kpl Sirul Azhar Umar, 35, respectively told Judicial Commissioner Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yasin they needed adequate time to prepare their case and applied for the case to be heard in June. The third accused, Abdul Razak Abdullah, 46, charged with abetting the two policemen in the murder, through his lawyerWong Khian Kheong, however insisted for an early hearing date.

“Due to public interest, the trial should begin as soon as possible, probably early next month,”aid Wong. Deputy Public Proseutor Salehuddin Saidin, who earlier addressed the court, said “today’s mention is to fix the trial date”. “All the lawyers must be free for the case to carry on,” said Salehuddin when asked outside the courtroom why the DPP’s office did not voice any objection to the two policemen’s lawyers’ request for a June trial date. There was also another new development during the proceedings when Wong informed the court that new solicitors have been appointed to represent Abdul Razak.

He named the solicitors from the law firm Norendra & Yap. “However I will (still) remain as a counsel for Abdul Razak,” said Wong. Mohd Zaki said the court had received a letter from Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill, the firm which Wong was attached with, that it no longer represented Abdul Razak. He also told the lawyers, with reference to the letter received from the Deputy Registrar which stated that following the appointment of three new Judicial Commissioners, the cases scheduled for end of the year and next year have been re-distributed because there were now six judges to handle criminal cases. He said the move was also in line with the Chief Justice’s circular for courts to bring forward and dispose pending cases.

“Moreover, the circular stressed that cases involving government servants should be given priority. There are about 200 such cases here and this is one of them. Even though Abdul Razak is not a public servant, his case has been brought forward because he is being jointly tried with the two policemen. Lawyer Karpal Singh, who is holding a watching brief for Altantuya’s family and the Mongolian government sought an explanation the reason for the change in the judge as it was previously heard before Justice Datuk K.N.Segara. “Do you have any problems with me hearing the case?” Mohd Zaki asked. “No, no problems, it is because of public apprehension.” Karpal Singh responded. Mohd Zaki said the reasons were as stated earlier and the case was transferred to him because Segara had more part-heard cases to be disposed off compared with him.

“Do the others have any problems with me hearing the case?” Mohd Zaki asked, and Salehuddin responded with “there was none”. The courtroom drama again focused on the “battle” between Kamarul, Zulkifli and Wong over the fixture of the trial date. Kamarul said he and Zulkifli require ample time to prepare their case and setting an earlier date will result in them having insufficient time for them to have astrong line of defence. “We are sole proprietors and have been giving emphasis on other cases as this case was initially set for March next year and the sudden change has affected our preparations,” added Zulkifli. Wong said his client has given firm instructions for his case to be heard and disposed off as soon as possible. “My client wants to be vindicated as soon as possible,” he added. He said the request for an early date was based on:

  1. the Chief Justice’s directive to bring forward and dispose cases involving government servants;
  2. the case involved the death of a foreigner and the interested parties have to travel far to attend the proceedings;
  3. the case is of public interest; and his client’s unprecedented move, to file and reveal in open court an affidavit detailing his relationship with the victim, which was aimed at assisting the court to expedite the case.

“I understand my learned friend’s concern, but I donít think hearing the case on a later date will cause any ‘dents’ to public interest,”Kamarul rebutted. Zulkilfi said it was only fair for the court to give him and Kamarul adequate time to prepare their case fully as the offence carried the death penalty upon conviction. “If Wong’s client has firm instructions, so do I. My client has firmly told me to begin in June,” said Zulkifli. Azilah, Sirul Azhar and Abdul Razak were not present in court today. Their families were, however, present to witness the proceedings. Mohd Zaki said usually it was the accused who would seek for early trial, but it was the other way round in this case.

“We don’t want any hiccups to occur during the trial and for the case to be disrupted,” he stressed. Mohd Zaki then asked Salehuddin how long time he would require to ready his case, to which the DPP said about a month as they will be calling between 30 and 40 witnesses. Ahmad Zaki also reminded there was another murder trial involving a government servant set in April and he would not want to change the dates set for that case. He asked Zulkifli if he could go on at end of April and May, but the lawyer insisted that he could not as he will be away, but did not tell the court the details. “Are you saying you will not be present if I set the case on May 14?” asked Mohd Zaki. Zulkifli responded with a “Yes”.Mohd Zaki also said it would be court vacation in June but he was willing to forego the leave to attend to the case. “We will be ready from June 4 and can proceed full swing until the end,” said Zulkifli. Mohd Zaki, after much deliberation, finally set June 4 to 29 for hearing. “No excuses for postponements will be entertained until the completion of the case,” he added before continuing to hear another case.

The trial was recently transferred to the Shah Alam High Court (Criminal) 3 before Justice Mohd Zaki Md Yassin The case was previously before Justice K.N. Segara, who had fixed the hearing for March next year
= = == = =

Altantuya murder case: Karpal urges police to use affidavit to reopen case
23 Jan 2007, NST;
KUALA LUMPUR: The police have been urged to reopen investigations into the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder case in the wake of what the man charged with abetting in the crime had said in his affidavit. Lawyer Karpal Singh (ABOVE), who is holding a watching brief for Altantuya’s family, said the startling revelations in the affidavit by political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda, read at the Shah Alam High Court on Friday in support of his bail application, had brought into focus the necessity to reopen investigations. Abdul Razak stated in his affidavit that he had a seven-month affair with Altantuya before their relationship turned sour. He had been with her in Hong Kong, Shanghai, Singapore, France and Kuala Lumpurbetween 2004 and 2005, and they had been lovers. ”She claimed to be a student and did side business (cari makan sampingan),”

Abdul Razak said, adding that he gave her money on several occasions, including US$10,000 (RM35,000) on three occasions. This money, he said, was to meet the medical expenses of Altantuya’s mother, who was suffering from cancer.Abdul Razak said sometime towards the end of 2005, he stopped giving her money and lodged a police report on Oct 23 last year as “I could not tolerate her nuisance“. Karpal, who is also the Bukit Gelugor MP,called on the police to record the statement from the Commissioner for Oaths who affirmed Abdul Razak’s affidavit.

Many are questioning WHY there has been a change of Trial Charge. In today’s hearing, Judicial Commissioner Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yasin who took over from judge Datuk K.N. Segara, gave two reasons why the case has been expedited.

  1. Appointment of three new judicial commissioners to hear the backlog criminal cases in Shah Alam High Court.
  2. Case was transferred to him as Segara has a lot of partly heard cases to handle compared to him.

Are these all the valid reasons? What is strange is that Datuk K N Segara is still in the Shah Alam High Court and, there was no proper application to transfer the case to another judge. Also innormal circumstances if an accused person is not happy with a particular trial judge, the proper procedure is to make an application that the said judge be removed. An in this case, was there such an application?


Even the counsel Zulkifli Noordin for the two accused (ABOVE)of murder in the case was informed about the change on 7th Marchand was not involved in any such application.

This change in “choosing the judge” must have been ordered by the higher ups in the judiciary or from the Executive. The truth is hard to determine.

“The commissioner would certainly be an important prosecution witness at the trial,” he said. “The affidavit is a sworn statement and amounts to evidence as if given from the witness box under oath. ”The evidence in the affidavit isstronger than a cautioned statement, which is not given under oath.” Karpal said the affidavit itself seemed like a confession and this led to judge Datuk K.N. Segara to comment that “there is also no dispute that the accused, on face value, abetted in the crime”.

The judge also said Abdul Razak and Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri, one of the men charged with her murder, were in constant communication before Altantuya was killed. Karpal called on the police to investigate Abdul Razak’s assertion that Azilah admitted he had killed six to seven people. “This incriminating statement is compounded by the fact that Azilah is a chief inspector attached to the Special Action Squad.” Karpal said every effort should be made to bring to justice those responsible for Altantuya’s murder. The case created a media frenzy after it was reported that Altantuya was shot before her body was blown up using explosives. Her bone fragments were found in a jungle clearing near Shah Alam. Abdul Razak is charged with abetting Azilah, 30, and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar, 35, in Altantuya’s murder. Azilah and Sirul were alleged to have committed the offence in Bukit Raja, Petaling, between10pm on Oct 19 and 1am on Oct 20.

 Since November, when the charred remains of a jet-setting young Mongolian were discovered in a patch of jungle outside this modern capital, her mysterious murder has captivated the political elite here, not least because prosecutors say she was killed by commandos assigned to the second most powerful man in the country, Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak.

Malaysians hope a basic but still elusive question will be answered: who was behind the murder in October of Altantuya Shaariibuu, 28, and why?

The trial is perhaps the most high-profile case in Malaysia

the inquiry into Shaariibuu’s murder has raised questions about the transparency and thoroughness of this country’s judicial system and about the practices of the Malaysian police. One of the bodyguards charged with murdering Shaariibuu bragged that he had killed “between 6 and 10 people,” according to an affidavit submitted in a pre-trial hearing.

Three men have been charged in the case: the two bodyguards and Abdul Razak Baginda, an adviser to the deputy prime minister, who is accused of aiding and abetting the killing of Shaariibuu, who he says was his mistress. They face death by hanging if convicted.

Shaariibuu was a part-time model who spoke English, Russian and Mandarin, according to local media reports. She was shot and her body destroyed with explosives, the police say. Malaysians have speculated for months as to whether her murder was the result of a lover’s quarrel or part of a more sinister and far-reaching cover-up involving high-level government officials.

“We are interested to know whether there is any political link to the murder,” said Zulkifli Noordin, a lawyer representing Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri, one of the bodyguards. “Why were all the people involved linked to No. 2?” he asked, referring to Najib.

Zulkifli said he would explore Shaariibuu’s role in the purchase of French submarines by Malaysia in 2002.

“She may have been involved as the interpreter in the arms deal between the French company and the Defense Ministry,” Zulkifli said. “We want to see whether there are any links.”

Zulkifli also plans to call Najib to the stand to inquire about meetings the deputy prime minister held with his client, he said.

One defense lawyer is skeptical that the court will explore possible motives for the murder.

“Motive is a very interesting question,” said Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin, a lawyer representing the other bodyguard charged, Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar. “But it is irrelevant here if they have physical evidence that three people have done it.”

Prosecutors, Kamarul predicts, will focus narrowly on the actual killing. Under Malaysian law, which resembles British or American legal tradition on this point, prosecutors need not show motive to get a conviction.

“It may be a trial where everything is said and done but nothing is answered,” Kamarul said.

Outside the courtroom, some analysts here see the case as a proxy battle for Malaysia’s top political job, currently held by Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. It is likely to stoke a long-standing rivalry between Najib, who as deputy prime minister is the heir apparent to the job of prime minister, and Anwar, the former deputy prime minister who was released from prison in 2004 and is seeking to make a political comeback.

More than anyone in Malaysia, Anwar has publicly urged a broader investigation into the purchase of the French submarines, allegations of kickbacks in that deal and the role that Shaariibuu may have played.

“The issue is who gave the instructions?” Anwar said in an interview this year. “If the instructions to the commandos were to finish off this girl and any traces because she was a threat to national security, what then is the status of the murder?”

Anwar says he is skeptical that the police can conduct a fair investigation into a killing that involves Najib’s bodyguards. He called for an independent inquiry.

“There’s a political damage exercise here,” said Sankara Nair, a Malaysian lawyer not involved with the trial. “Anwar is throwing a small political bomb into Najib’s camp.”

Anwar’s most forceful allegation is that the deputy prime minister’s bodyguards, some of whom are members of a special commando force, only act on orders from the top.

“Their duty is like the Secret Service – to protect,” Anwar said. “That’s why questions must be raised.”

Najib has said little about the trial, except that he never met Shaariibuu and that he wants to let the investigation and trial take their course.

But a spokesman for Najib responded angrily to Anwar’s allegations.

“This is a not a banana republic!” said the spokesman, Sariffuddin Ahmad, adding that Anwar was basically accusing Najib of ordering the killing.

“He’s trying to politicize the trial,” Sariffuddin said of Anwar. “We should wait for the trial to start and separate fact from myth.”
FRENCH PROBE- MP claims magistrates only investigating but not a court case

KUALA LUMPUR: DATUK Zulkifli Noordin yesterday dismissed as baseless an attempt by the opposition parties to create an issue over a probe by French magistrates into alleged irregularities concerning the Malaysian purchase of two Scorpene submarines.

The former lawyer of Parti Keadilan Rakyat de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said he was aware of a plan by leaders of opposition parties who wanted to create an issue out of the submarines’ purchase in an effort to link it to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

“I’ve said so many times before, there is no such connection.

“If there was, I would had used it then.

“I didn’t because there is none,” he said.

Zulkifli, who was met at the Parliament lobby yesterday, said the Scorpene submarine issue was a non-issue in France as the authorities there were just investigating the matter instead of it being a court case.

“In France, a magistrate is the investigating authority and when they investigate, it is not a court proceeding.

“It is a normal investigation.

“So they may or may not proceed with it.

“It’s up to them.” he said.

The Royal Malaysian Navy had acquired the submarines KD Tunku Abdul Rahman and KD Tun Razak in 2009.

On another matter, Zulkifli, who is the Kulim Bandar Baru independent member of parliament, suggested that Bar bodies, similar to those in Sabah and Sarawak, be set up at every state to replace the Bar Council.

This, he said, would ensure greater autonomy to the respective states’ committee.

“The Sabah and Sarawak models have proven to be effective as they can control and regulate their members properly.

“There were hardly any complaints about lawyers from the two states, unlike those in Peninsular Malaysia.”

He expressed his worry that with the impending plan to open up the legal profession to foreign lawyers, the Bar Council may not be able to cope with the influx.

“The current Bar has so many functions and with the incoming new foreign lawyers, I don’t think it can cope,” he said.
Scorpenes: Who's NOT SERIOUS - Anifah or French court?

“This is a strong message from the court – a message to all politicians of responsibility. It’s also proof of a mature and transparent democracy that is today able to make a distinction and try a former president,”

“The justice system has been very severe, but this is a fair and independent justice system. For the family, it’s a great pain we have to accept,” said Anh Dao Traxel, her voice cracking with emotion outside the courtroomA career politician, Chirac was a debonair master of the workings of public office. He modeled himself after de Gaulle, and was nicknamed “Le Bulldozer” early in his career for his determination and ambition.Chirac’s 54-year-old Vietnamese-born adopted daughter Anh Dao Traxel said the ruling had been “too, too harsh”.”Justice has spoken, it must be respected but it’s unfortunately a great pain for our family and for Jacques Chirac,” she told reporters.
Thursday’s sentence was a surprise. Even state prosecutors had called for Chirac — who still polls as one of France’s most popular figures — to be cleared, and France has largely forgiven his long history of corruption.

“I hope this judgement won’t change the profound affection that the French people still rightly have for Jacques Chirac,” defence counsel Georges Kiejman said, adding that Chirac would decide later in the day whether to appeal.

Chirac’s 54-year-old Vietnamese-born adopted daughter Anh Dao Traxel said the ruling had been “too, too harsh”.

“Justice has spoken, it must be respected but it’s unfortunately a great pain for our family and for Jacques Chirac,” she told reporters.

The opposition Socialist Party’s candidate for next year’s presidential race, Francois Hollande, said “justice has been done” but added that he “had a thought for a man who has more health problems”.

Members of Chirac’s right-wing UMP party expressed regret.

Prime Minister Francois Fillon said the case had taken too long to resolve, with the ruling falling two decades after the crimes.

“I don’t think this decision will alter the personal relationship that exists between Jacques Chirac and the French people,” he said.

Chirac was president of France between 1995 and 2007 and enjoyed legal immunity while in office. He denied all the charges, but the case is only one of many corruption scandals to have dogged him in a long public career.

Doctors say he has “severe and irreversible” neurological problems including memory loss and dementia linked to his advanced age.

While he still makes occasional public appearances as a respected centre-right elder statesman, he was unable to attend the trial.

He was tried alongside nine alleged accomplices. Two were cleared, but the rest were convicted of helping Chirac run a system at Paris city hall under which political allies were paid municipal salaries for fake jobs.

The city of Paris, which is now run by a Socialist mayor, dropped a case for damages over the case after Chirac and the UMP agreed to pay 2.2 million euros to cover the embezzled funds.

Chirac — who lives in a luxury Paris flat overlooking the Seine near the Eiffel Tower paid for by the family of the assassinated former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri — repaid 500,000 euros out of his own pocket.

He was convicted of hiring members of his political party, then known as the Rally for the Republic (RPR) for non-existent municipal jobs, using the civic payroll to employ his own campaign staff.

In all, 19 fake jobs were created in Paris between 1990 and 1995, ahead of Chirac’s successful presidential bid. Veil said: “With 40,000 workers at city hall, it’s not that many at the end of the day.”

Several people were convicted in connection with the ghost worker case in 2004, including Juppe, who was found guilty of mishandling public funds but was  a key figure in Sarkozy’s government.

Foreign Minister Dato Seri Anifah Aman is walking on thin ice when he says the Scorpene probe is “not a serious matter that we need to follow”.

Firstly, he should tell us how much he knows about the probe and how he has come to know those details given the fact that Malaysia is not currently participating in the probe in France.

It is refreshing to hear that the Minister seems to know the issues in the probe. But his remarks don’t add up.

On the one hand he says its not a serious matter that we need to follow. On the other hand, he says Malaysia will “make the necessary preparations to face the trial when they are needed”

With respect, the Minister must make up his mind. If Malaysia will participate, why are we not there to assist to begin with?

A video by MEDIA RAKYAT featuring Suaram director Cynthia Gabriel and PKR Selayang MP (also a lawyer) William Leong.

How poisonous is the “scorpene” sting?

“There’s always a pretty girl, a dead body, ministers involved and huge kickbacks,” says William Leong in the interview with Adrian Yeo, when describing the modus operandi of a French naval giant.

From Paris, to Karachi, Taipeh and Kuala Lumpur, this company, which sold two scorpene-class submarines to Malaysia in 2002, is being investigated and alleged to have paid huge amounts of commission (illegal in France) to top French and Malaysian officials.

The gruesome murder of Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu by two bodyguards of then deputy prime minister Najib Razak (now prime minister!) is said to be related to the deal.

How closely related or linked, the case filed by Suaram against the company, will reveal all, when the case is heard in France.

The duo, whose faces have been covered all through the trial and would never be recognized by any of us if we were to see them without cover, is appealing their case in August.

Najib who was then Defense Minister when the deal was done has denied ever knowing Altantuya. He has even sworn on the Quran to convince people to believe him.

As always, as is the usual case, some do and some don’t, despite whatever he says. Poor man!

William Leong says when the case is heard in Paris, we will all know whether Najib really knows this woman or not.

I, too, have written extensively on the issue, and the latest news story in here in

Perhaps the Minister should, and I call upon him to brief Parliament in detail over what the probe has revealed to date and to what extent evidence has been obtained and whether it reflects any wrongdoing on part of our officials in the said transaction.

The Minister must tell us why it is he thinks this is not a serious matter. It is a matter of public concern. He must give us reasons in full.

The Minister is also quoted as saying “so far we have not received any information from the French Embassy. But if necessary, we are ready to defend ourselves”.

This defies logic. There is a probe which is on going which involves the nation. Surely we cannot just sit back and wait for the French Embassy to brief us?

A-G must intervene

The Attorney General should, as first legal officer, intervene. He should and must advise the Minister that the proper approach to take especially in a case like this where the country’s reputation is at stake, is to take from the very outset, stock of the situation.

We should and must participate and have our own representatives defending us and regularly updating us as to the findings of the inquiry. We should be on top of things.

Anything short of this would appear to be an obviously negligent handling of the matter for which the government must in the end be fully prepared to account for.Murky arms deal linked to international pattern of kickbacksDeputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin today yet again refused to field questions on the French probe into the Malaysian Scorpene submarine purchase.hope who ever did it will pay for sin even if it involve PRIME MINISTER Not only tight lipped but cumming all over the place with ecstasy … Read more


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s