Monday, October 22, 2012

SUARAM is NOT a Civil Party in French Investigations

It may be the title, that it did not generate interest, the Malaysian Insider's "NGOs say Suaram misrepresented itself as plaintiff in Scorpene inquiry".

I certainly missed it.

It could also have been the excitement of French prosecutor Yves Charpenel statements having the greater interest.

Sensational enough for SUARAM to make it's own official statement.

The Malaysian Insider quoted Dzulkarnain Taib, president of the Young Journalists Club, "We view the claim that SUARAM has been accepted or recognised as ‘civil party’ as a biggest lie in the country’s political history" and reported,
He declined to show the two court documents to reporters, saying that it will be revealed at an “opportune time”.

He gave the court reference number for the documents instead, with the first being “No du Parquet:1115196025 and No Instruction: 2292/12/4” and the second being “No Parquet: 1115106025 and No Instruction: 20F/11/52”.
This is what SUARAM had to say in it's statement -
7. A judicial inquiry had commenced on 16 March 2012, and SUARAM was made a civil party to the case.
I believe judicial questions were requested by the French prosecutors in a document dated 29 February 2012.

Which was duly replied by the investigating judges, Roger Le Loire and Serge Tournaire on 13 March 2012 by document Instruction No: 2292/12/4,
"Vu les réquisitions de Monsieur le Procureur de la République en date du 29 février 2012"
The document ends with the judges decision,
FOR THESE REASONS, We declare the the inadmissibility of the Malaysian organisation, SUARAM, as a civil party.
Yet SUARAM claims it was made a civil party 3 days later.

Can SUARAM provide documentary evidence to back up it's claim?

7 comments:

Snuze said...

Thanks for the heads up, Freddie! Those lying liars should put out their pants; don't they realise that it's on fire?

Freddie Kevin said...

Hi Snuze,

There is a document dated 16 March 2012 from SUARAM's lawayers but it is more a note acknowledging the prosecutor's attention of the same judicial question that the investigation judges had decided. All documents carry the same "No Parquet:1115196025"

The prosecutor's letter has it's heading "RÉQUISITIONS AUX FINS DE CONSTATER L'IRRECEVABILITÉ DE CONSTITUTION DE PARTIE CIVILE"-REQUISITIONS FOR THE FINDING OF INADMISSIBILITY A CIVIL PARTY.

The investigating judges document has it's heading "ORDONNANCE CONSTATANT L'IRRECEVABILITÉ de la CONSTITUTION DE LA PARTIE CIVILE"-ORDER DECLARING THE INADMISSIBILITY of the ESTABLISHMENT OF CIVIL PARTY APPLICATIONS.

"Inadmissability" can also mean "to dismiss" in context of the prosecutor's request.

Bye for now
Freddie

IT.Sheiss said...

Thanks for your revelation.

Revelations and analyses by others also suggest that SUARAM's attempts to get the French courts to hold a trial of alleged parties to corruption in France could well not succeed.

Also, the French authorities have stated that they do not have any records of Altantuya entering France during the period of interest.

While that does not definitely mean that she was not in France, since she could have entered through a neighbouring EU country, still no evidence is no evidence as far as courts go.

Anyway, even if she was, so what. She could just just have been a traveling companion of someone else related to the Scopene negotiations.

This investigation has nothing to do with Altantuya's murder which is beyond the jurisdiction of French courts anyway.

Still, the two French lawyers stand to earn big bucks out of all this.

Anyway, I wonder how many Malaysian voters care that much about this case, when there are bigger issues such as their economic survival to bother about.


Freddie Kevin said...

IT.Sheiss,

The other issue is, what SUARAM are saying. Are their French lawyers aware of the deceitful statements? Where the rakyat are concerned, yes, management of the economy ranks very high on their concerns. The latest world bank rankings results of the many Govt affirmative actions to maintain and improve the economic health of the country. While the VOTING rakyat can be swayed by these SUARAM nonsense. That is the reason why any "civil society" act must be exposed when they hide ulterior political motives. As for Altantuya, an undeniable fact is there exists no evidence that she spoke French, therefor she never was or can be a party to any French negotiations. A point SUARAM and their ilk will not point, to the all believing gullible.

Thank you for the comment.

Best regards
Freddie

IT.Sheiss said...

Freddie,

" While the VOTING rakyat can be swayed by these SUARAM nonsense. That is the reason why any "civil society" act must be exposed when they hide ulterior political motives. As for Altantuya, an undeniable fact is there exists no evidence that she spoke French, therefor she never was or can be a party to any French negotiations. A point SUARAM and their ilk will not point, to the all believing gullible."

No disagreement with your intentions, Freddie. Yes some of the voting public, especially the urban middle class voters may be swayed but I don't think the urban working class and lower income group or rural voters will be.

While I've never been pro-BN, I'm suspicious of the intentions of SUARAM and especially it receiving funds from bodies such as the NED and Open Society Institute.

Also, don't quite trust the opposition now.

Also, the selective criticism of the BN allegedly based on concerns for human rights, democracy, anti-corruption, etc. by SUARAM and fellow NGOs aligned with it.

For example, how many of them or opposition politicians have raised the issue of those two Indonesian brothers sentenced to death for killing an intruder in their room while defending their own lives and limb.

For example, Lawyers of Liberty hasn't mentioned the case on their website so far.

http://www.lawyersforliberty.org

They claim to be against the death penalty and have called for its abolition but when it comes to these two guys, nada so far.

The implications of this sentence is that we ordinary folk will be fearful to defend ourselves and our families against intruders.

Lawyers for Liberty fought to prevent the deportation of Saudi journalist Hamza Kashgari back to Saudi Arabia where he could face death and used the occasion to whack the government but now that he's back in Saudi Arabia, has said nothing more about him. So are they really concerned about his fate or just wanted to use them for their political agenda.

Apparently, Hamza is still under detention in Saudi Arabia and the latest IU could find, is this ongoing online petition for his release.

http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Free_Hamza_Kashgari_2/?wyZIUcb

I would be more realistic and appeal to the Saudi authorities to show compassion and leniency to Hamza and spare his life, especially since it was the Saudi people who called for his blood, whether we agree with them or not.

Maybe Lawyers for Liberty have, and it's just me, but I haven't seen any such petition initiated by Lawyers for Liberty, which seems to have been more concerned with bashing the Malaysian government, even after he was back in Saudi Arabia.

Freddie Kevin said...

IT.Sheiss,

"Yes some of the voting public, especially the urban middle class voters may be swayed" but these are the ones who have increasing influence on the "urban working class and lower income group or rural voters".

I dare say their dissemination machinery is well organised and programmed.

Getting funding from anyone is not an issue. If well intentioned NGOs can get hundreds of thousands USD for honest programmes and intentions, no problem.

When funding is used and abused for ulterior motives then it must be critically be exposed

I see and agree much with what you articulate. For me, I do not place credence to any international NGO. There are too many double standards. When I post these NGO links, they are normally to rebut the oppositions assertions because opposition (and supporters) trust these orgs.

Vested interests for self serving benefits have their connections to various NGOs for human rights, freedom for this and that etc, to do their bidding. For example, When talking about human rights, freedom of etc etc, as far as China goes, silence is golden. The $ is the greater good. But, as I do not take kindly for outsiders to pass judgement on our Malaysian affairs so too would I not want to talk about other country affairs.

Thank you for taking time to comment.

Best regards
Freddie

IT.Sheiss said...

Freddie,

I'll come back to you on your last reply on the FCCT topic after doing some research.

However, the results of this albeit non-scientific survey of Malays on the ground in Taiping by Barking Magpie tend to confirm my gut feeling about the rural and urban lower income Malay vote in the next GE.

http://barkingmagpie.blogspot.com/2012/10/confirmed-taiping-malays-will-not-vote.html

I also feel there may well be a shift away from Pakatan, especially DAP in Penang by the Malays, especially over rising property prices and lack of provision of low-cost housing.