答案应该是否定的,

马来西亚建国已经54年，这54年来，走过无数风风雨雨，或者，说的耸动一点：经历许多腥风血雨。好容易才来到308的政治分水岭。当此时刻，当​​政者不但没有从308政治海啸中觉醒，力求变革挽回民心，反而变本加厉的继续运用《五鬼搬运》手法，肆无忌惮的淘空国库的人民血汗钱。从308迄今，马来西亚的民怨只有一天比一天加深，不曾消减过。
在这个时刻，我们又听到当政者抬出五一三流血冲突惨剧来恫吓人民，意思是说；如果不投票支持国阵，国阵垮台的话，类似五一三的惨剧随时会再发生！尤其巫统主席纳吉，在最近刚刚结束的巫统代表大会上的措词，恐吓味道相当浓厚。他认为继续炒作五一三课题，人民还会因为惧怕动乱而继续把选票投给国阵，让他们继续淘空国家的钱，继续实行不公不以的政策剥削全国人民，独肥朋党吗？答案应该是否定的,今时今日网络资讯发达，国阵如果还停留在旧思维，认为只要全面控制印刷媒体，电子媒体，封杀反对的声音，就可以继续用花言巧语蒙骗选民，继续得到压倒性的选票支持，那，我们只能说，国阵是在痴人说梦，还在白日梦里不愿苏醒！言归正传。对于50岁以上的马来西亚人来说，五一三流血冲突惨剧，绝对是大马建国史上的一个梦魇。许多人在这个惨剧中，妻离子散，家庭破裂。
死亡的人固然已经躺在历史的洪流中；幸存者经过42年岁月的洗礼，虽然已经渐渐走出恶梦，但是他们并没有遗忘那段可怕的日子！这些可怕的记忆，只是被深埋在脑海深处，谁也不想去触碰，去挖掘，去回想。但是，我们那些可恶的政棍，却很喜欢重提五一三；久不久就喜欢去触动马来族群和华族的敏感神经，刻意炒作五一三课题来恫吓善良守法的各族百姓，通过这种卑劣的手段来达到他们的政治目的。尤其是执政了50多年的巫统和马华，总是喜欢在他们的滥权贪污，不公不义的行为被国民揭发和检验的时候，将所有课题强硬扯上种族宗教关系，然后例必搬出五一三事件来恫吓人民。尤其当他们觉得人民在质疑他们的诚信问题是，五一三就被用来当成挡箭牌。这些种种，敦拉萨时期经常使用，马哈迪时代用得最凶，阿都拉时代，还有现在的纳吉时代，还是很喜欢《打五一三牌》，屡试不爽！可惜，今时不同往日；以前资讯落后，政府可以封锁消息，严格控制保障杂志，谁敢报导真相，谁就肯定会被吊销出版准证；电台电视台的资讯传播也都在他们的控制之中，人民百姓从来只听到对当政者歌功颂德的新闻，反对党的声音都听不见，更遑论真相？当政者不敢让人民知道真相，原因当然很简单：因为真相是非常丑陋的！发生在1969年五月十三日的《五一三事件》，事隔42年，真相出来了吗？可以说，事件的真相已经出来了，而且很明显，和官方的说辞，完全南辕北撤！差别太大了！

遺忘的歷史

任何歷史事件的發生，都會有其特定的時空背景。我想籍由以下兩個大面向來試著加以瞭解當時的時代的演化：
   １．宏觀的國際思潮的發展：
   　　隨著西方在十六世紀民族國家的興起，再加上工業革命後的資本主義發展，緊跟而來是積極向東擴張的帝國主義所引發的普遍性殖民現象；種種新思潮（自由、民主等觀念）的衝擊，更加速了東方農業和專制世界的巨變，尤其是在第二次大戰後所掀起的二股旋風影響最大：「民族自決」和「共產主義」。前者引爆了四、五十年代全面性的反帝國殖民的獨立抗爭運動；後者則普遍造就了六十年代第三世界各國社會動盪不安的意識形態戰場（註3）馬來西亞乃當時脈絡中的一份子，自然會受到此一趨勢的影響。　
   
   (a) 英國殖民時代（1786-1957 )：英殖民下的「分而治之」政策，使得華、巫、印及原住民等各種族間所扮演的分工角色不同。巫人乃是我國政府行政人員（貴族階層）和務農角色（一般老百姓）;華人則多從事跟經濟活動相關的領域（商、礦工等）;而印人則多在勞動領域(園丘、鐵路工人等）此現象乃殖民政府為達控制目的所作的政治安排，對日後馬來西亞社會族群關係的影響極深（註4）。
   
   (b) 馬共問題：馬來亞共產黨成立於1927年。其勢力發展一直造成有關政府的困擾，尤其是在1947年馬共武裝判變失敗後，馬來亞進入戒嚴時代，也從此加深了英人對華人的戒心（註5）；獨立後；左派勢力（議會路線的社會主義）更是蓬勃發展於六十年代的社會中，這股社會力量深深吸引中下階層人士，形成一股極大的反對勢力，給於當時執政的聯盟（Alliance）（註6）很大的壓力，也為1969年的第三次大選增添了不可知的變數。
   
   基本上，作為一九六九年五月十三日種族衝突爆發前的馬來西亞社會，無論在政治，經濟和社會各方面都潛伏著許多令人憂慮不安的因素，我們可以從下列幾點來說：
   
   (a)新加坡效應：新加坡於1963年加入馬來西亞聯邦，後因政治理念不合而在1965年8月9日脫離馬來西亞而宣佈獨立（註7）。此一進一出最根本的影響是新加坡的人民行動黨（PAP）勢力，在退出馬來西亞後形成後來最大的反對黨的民主行動黨（DAP），成為大選中反對陣營華人勢力的領導者。
   
   (b)社會矛盾的尖銳化：殖民時期遺留下社會隔離政策影響，使得彼此無法消除內在社會的衝突。例如華社內部一直以來關注的官方語言這政策和獨立大學問題；馬來社會中溫和保守勢力（以東姑為首）不斷受到激進份子的挑戰；印度社會的勞工福利問題也無法得到有效解決。這些問題的加總，使得一般民眾更傾向反對勢力，間接促住了社會緊張之局勢。
   
   (c)衝突事件之發生：大選前兩個多星期內，陸續發生二件不幸的意外事件（註8）尤其是發生在五月四日於吉隆坡勞工黨的示威遊行時，一勞工黨青年被警員不幸擊斃。他的死亡在五月九日以「烈士」的形象出殯，浩蕩的隊伍，鼓動的情緒，煽動的標語等，像是一顆危險的炸彈，投入在隔日的大選身上。　
   五一三前後
   
   　　五月十日，大選終於順利舉行，其結果可說是震驚朝野。在104個國會議席中，聯盟獲得66席，未達三分之二的絕對優勢。就得票率而言，聯盟獲得48.5%的選票；而反對黨的總得票率卻高達51.5%（註9）。反對陣線的空前獲勝心情完全表露在十二日的遊行慶祝中。
   
    五月十二日，首相東姑宣稱如果人民對他領導下的聯盟缺乏信心，他將辭去首相一職；而反對黨則大示慶祝，遊街參與民眾情緒高亢， 開始出現了不雅挑釁的語言動作。隨後，雪蘭莪州務大臣拿督哈崙（Datuk Harun）宣佈巫統將於十三日晚7:30分展開慶祝勝利大遊行 。
   
   　　五月十三日，一群馬來青年前往拿督哈崙住處集合遊行，在文良港Setapak地區與華，印人發生衝突。6:45p.m三具華人屍體被發現。7:20p.m 敦拉薩以內政部長身份宣佈首都及雪蘭莪地區，Kampung Bahru、Ipoh Road、Batu Road、Cambell Road、Chow Kit Road等均發生騷亂事件 。 8:00p.m 正副首相，在警察總部與陸軍及警察首長會商後，敦拉薩調派2000名軍人及3600名警察，進駐首都維持秩序(註10)。隨後，霹靂、森美蘭及柔佛相繼戒嚴。
   
   五月十四日，股市停市，航空、火車、水上交通一切停頓。只有在晚間7時至10時人民被允許步行或騎腳踏車上街購物，不准乘坐汽車；最高元首應首相之請，頒下緊急法令，賦予首相東姑特別權力處理此次事件。
   
   五月十五日，所有報紙被令停刊。吉打、玻璃市、馬六甲相繼被宣佈為戒嚴區。各地解嚴時間均為上午三小時。
   
   五月十六日，最高元首在首相諮請下，成立國家行動委員會(National　Operation Council，NOC)，並於隔日公佈組置名單（註11）。
   
   五一三的影響
   
   　　五一三悲劇的發生，非你我大家所願見到的。撇開人員傷亡之損失不談，其對於馬來西亞以後的影響可謂即深且廣。尤其是民主政治的發展轉向，更起著一個劃時代的分水嶺。下面我們試著就政治，經濟和社會三方面來談：
   
   (a) 政治方面：隨著五一三的發生，國家行動委員會的成立，聯盟互輔的合作模式乃被國陣取代。即以巫統為主導，馬華和國大黨居次的運行關係：1970年提出的五大原則( Rukunegara）則意謂官方試圖致力於國家整合而努力的意識形態宣導，以確保種族的和諧性。基於種族複雜性之安全考慮，通過條文禁止任何公開討論馬來保留地，特權等敏感相關議題。言論空間乃有所限制。
   
   (b)經濟方面：由於經濟所得分配不均，造成種族間差異性過大乃發生此不幸衝突事件。為達到「消除貧窮，社會重組」兩大目標，影響至今的新經濟政策正式被提出並執行。政府人為介入市場機制的運作，以改善彼此經濟落差。
   
   (c) 社會方面：五一三之後，六十年代以來，民間社會運動的活力從此消聲匿跡，反對勢力也沉寂下來。在內安法令下，各種聚會活動嚴格監控，公權力得以「伸張」，深植人民心中的是一條永不可跨越的「安全地帶」！
   
   從沒想過，認識自己國家的歷史，竟然要漂洋過海，遠赴他鄉才可能（悲乎？喜乎？亦悲亦喜吧！）身為五一三發生後第一代的我們， 在省思政治圖騰的背後，打破歷史迷惑的同時，更要從中汲取寶貴的教訓。這代價是大了點，在為這土地複雜的種族問題努力時，別讓先人的血淚白流了！
   
   我想，今後馬來西亞後的二股思潮力量：「文化多元」與「國家整合」概念，依然是我們要去面對和克服的。當多元種族落地生根的開始，其文化的多元與多樣性更需要一個開放、包容的社會；又或者在邁向國家整合的且同時，可否出現「同中存異」或「異中求同」的的可能性？更甚，在思考種族問題時，別忘了，世界其他的地區（加拿大，印尼，菲律賓等國），也同樣存在著族群問題，切勿讓自己掉入狹窄的種族主義陷阱當中！
   
   最後，從權力關係和利益角度來看，是否可以找到一個跨越自我族群中心，創造彼此共同關心的基礎點呢？這，或許是另一種思維旳可能空間吧！
   註2：此文字資料乃參加「513事件」專題讀書小組而得。所選文章以中文為主，部份詳列在參考書目以供意者進一步參閱 。tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb,tv series,tv drama,movie,bt,download+ D0 R8 l3 @& d7 x m
   註3：東南亞各國普遍都經歷被殖民－－獨立運動以及共產赤化問題。可參見顧長永所著< 東南亞政府與政治 >一書。五南出版社) d. |9 u9 t8 ~. ^
   註4：同上 第二章：馬來西亞－－種族緊張的政治與經濟發展。華、巫及印族在英政府有意的分工下，我們仍可以在獨立多年后的今天依稀可循。例如大園丘中仍以印度人為主。此種隔離的政策使彼此間沒有共同生活經驗，極易形成封閉的自我中心觀。& ^. U2 j$ U; ?. I1 D& k
   註5：馬共早期深受中共和印共影響。前者多以華人為主。英國國會曾經辨論馬來亞成為中國的一個省份的可能，在防中共下，英國人更不願開放政治參與空間；印尼共產黨亦曾積極介入馬來亞政爭，希望成立大印尼共榮圈。因此印尼堅決反對"馬來西亞" 的成立，才有1963年的外交對抗(confrantation ) tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb,tv series,tv drama,movie,bt,download2 {' R3 a4 f4 c: a/ G
   註6：聯盟為國陣( Barisan National )前身。由東姑發起成立於1952年自治選舉前，並且嬴得該次選舉的52國會席次中的51個，成為一代表全民政治組織。其包含了巫統( UMNO )，馬華公會( MCA ) 和印度國大黨( MIC )8 w) V6 v" J+ s
註7：李光耀領導的人民行動黨提出「馬來西亞人的馬來西亞 」深得非巫族的支持，對聯盟和協構成威脅，加上種族人口比例的現實考量，東姑只有兩種選擇：逼退新加坡或者逮捕李光耀。
   
   
   註8：第一件事件發生在1967年4月24日。檳城Encik Kassim Bin Omar遇害身亡，身上被淋紅漆，抵制選舉。有關當局為免擴大影響而極力低調處理。可參見東姑所寫 < 513前後 > 一書 頁39。) 
   註9：聯盟此次選舉遭受重大挫折，比1964年的大選得到89席少了23席；馬華公會也由原來的27席降為13席；反而成立才三年的民主行動黨卻得到13個席次，一躍成為國會中最大的反對黨。
   
   註10：因所調派的所有軍人及警察皆為巫人，引起日後執法公正性的懷疑及爭議 。
   註11:本文不列舉死傷及財物損失數據，主要因為官方檔案尚打開。 可參見台大化工系陳玉璇所整理的< 513事始末 >刊登於22屆同學會< 跨馬集 >

馬來西亞‧4男童性侵7歲學妹

（馬來西亞）4名年僅10歲及11歲的男童，竟然涉嫌多次誘騙同校的7歲女童到油棕園一木屋後，輪流性侵犯女童。這4名乳臭未乾的男童每次在性侵女童後，還恐嚇女童不得告訴他人；直到其中一名男童過後向同學“炫耀”他們的醜行，同學轉告學校教師後，才揭發這起驚人的事件。

與4男童就讀同一國小

這起案件是發生在吉南區萬拉峇魯縣。受害者與4名涉嫌性侵的男童就讀於縣內其中一所國小。

據瞭解，4名男童已多次性侵女童，直到前天其中一名男童的同學轉告教師，這起事件才曝光。

警方在事後把4名男童帶回警局問話，而女童也被送入醫院檢查，報告證實她已不止一次被性侵犯。

被男童威脅不能張揚

女童說，她之前不敢說出此事，因為她被4名男童威脅不能張揚。

女童的家人已向警方報案。

另一方面，萬拉峇魯警區主任希爾米副警監受詢時證實此案，並表示警方已將4名男童帶返警局協助調查。

女童被性侵超過一次
母親感震驚悲痛

女童的母親受詢時說，她對女兒的遭遇感到震驚及悲痛，她將與丈夫商討如何幫助女兒度過艱難的時刻。

她透露，負責檢驗女兒傷勢的醫生向她指出，根據女兒的受傷情況，相信女兒被性侵超過一次。

女童的父親則說，他們一定會透過法律途徑討回公道，不會姑息這批學童。

他說，他們一家因為此事已深受影響，目前除了要求警方儘快調查外，也開始輔導女兒。（馬來西亞星洲日報）这是我们国家的教育出了什么问题，还是我们社会病了？

除了感叹世风日下，道德沦亡，我们究竟还可以做些什么

私家侦探巴拉苏巴马廉

曾立下宣誓书指首相纳吉涉及蒙古女郎炸尸案的私家侦探巴拉苏巴马廉今午离世，4年前巴拉因立宣誓书‘揭发纳吉涉案后匆匆离国，直至2013年2月24日回国，巴拉重返国门的第一件事，就是在机场公开宣誓，他含着眼泪，举着印度典籍《薄伽梵歌》说：

“我以这本圣书发誓，第一份法定宣誓书是真的。”

没想到在短短20天这句话竟然成了巴拉留给大家的遗言，愿巴拉一路好走灵魂安息，同时盼巴拉在天之灵保佑《蒙古女郎炸尸案》有水落石出凶手伏法的一天。

以下是巴拉苏巴马廉第一份宣誓书全文：

我，巴拉苏巴马廉（Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal，左图）是成年的马来西亚公民，诚恳地做出以下宣告：

1. 我在1981年加入大马皇家警察部队，成为一名巡警。之后，我晋升为巡伍长，最终在1998年从政治部离开警队。

2. 离开警队后，我成为一个独立私家侦探。

3. 大约在2006年6、7月，阿都拉萨巴金达（Abdul Razak Baginda）雇用我10天，负责每个工作天从早上8时至下午5时，在其坐落在安邦路的天然胶大楼（Bangunan Getah Asli）办公室，负责保护他的安全。他当时显然受到第三者的骚扰。

4. 我在工作两天半后就辞职了，因为我没有获得任何妥当的指示。

5. 不过，阿都拉萨在2006年10月5日重新聘用我，他当时显然收到一名华裔、自称陈姓助理警监男子的骚扰电话，他威胁阿都拉萨，要后者还债。我后来发现，这名男子其实是一名称为洪（Ang）的私家侦探，他受雇于一名蒙古女郎阿旦杜亚（Altantuya Shaaribuu）。

6. 阿都拉萨巴金达担心，是一名蒙古女郎阿旦杜亚在背后威胁他，而且将在不久后来马，同时企图联络他。

7. 阿都拉萨告诉我，他担心的原因是，有人曾劝告他，阿旦杜亚已经获得蒙古“巫师”的法力，所以他绝不可以再见到她的脸。

8. 当我询问这蒙古女郎到底是谁，阿都拉萨告诉我，她是一名朋友。阿都拉萨通过一名重要人物而结识她，这名人士要求阿都拉萨在经济上照顾她。

9. 针对自称为陈姓助理警监的华裔男子的恐吓电话，我劝他向警方报案。不过，他拒绝了，他告诉我，其中涉及了一些大人物。

10. 阿都拉萨继续告诉我，阿旦杜亚是个大骗子，有轻易说服别人的本事。她据说有很大的金钱需求，而阿都拉萨甚至为她在蒙古买了一栋房子。

11. 之后，阿都拉萨让我听她的一些电话留言，这些留言中，阿旦杜亚要求他还清已到期的债务，否则将对他不利，并且骚扰他的女儿。

12. 如此一来，我也需要同时保护他的女儿罗薇娜（Rowena）。

13. 在2006年10月9日大约早上9时半，我接到阿都拉萨的一通电话。他表示阿旦杜亚已在他的办公室，同时要求我马上到他的办公室。由于我正在进行监视工作，我因此派遣我的助手苏拉斯（Suras）到阿都拉萨巴金达的办公室。我随后才过去那里。苏拉斯成功控制状况，同时说服阿旦杜亚和随行的两名朋友离开。不过，阿旦杜亚留下了一纸便条，便条纸源自马来亚酒店，她用英文写，要求阿都拉萨通过她的手机联络她（其上有电话号码），她也写下了她的房间号码。

阿旦杜亚自我介绍“阿米娜”

14. 阿旦杜亚向苏拉斯自我介绍是“阿米娜”（Aminah，译注：阿旦杜亚的别称），并且表示，她到来是为了探视自己的男友阿都拉萨。

15. 不过，这3名蒙古女郎在翌日中午12时左右，再度造访阿都拉萨在安邦路天然胶大楼的办公室。他们没有进入该大楼，不过却再次告诉苏拉斯，他们要见阿米娜的男友：阿都拉萨。

16. 2006年10月11日，阿米娜独自造访阿都拉萨的办公室，同时交给我一张便条，请我转交给阿都拉萨。我也照做了。阿都拉萨巴金达给我看该便条，她基本上要求他马上致电。

17. 我建议阿都拉萨，如果阿米娜继续骚扰他，安排把阿米娜逮捕是比较明智的做法，不过他却拒绝了，认为一旦她的钱用光，她就会返回蒙古。

18. 在此同时，我也安排苏拉斯在马来亚酒店展开监视，监控这3名蒙古女郎的动向，不过她们认出了苏拉斯。显然她们跟苏拉斯交了朋友，有几个晚上，他更在她们的房间过夜。

19. 当阿都拉萨发现苏拉斯和阿旦杜亚逐渐熟络后，他叫我把他从马来亚酒店中拉出来。

20. 在2006年10月14日，阿米娜前往阿都拉萨位于白沙罗高原的房子。我当时虽然不在场，但是阿都拉萨通过电话告知我此事，我于是马上赶到他家。当我一抵步时，我发现阿米娜在该所房子前的篱笆外高喊：“拉萨，你这混蛋，快给我出来”。我于是试图稳住她的情绪，但是却不可行。我惟有报警，警方后来派出两辆巡逻车到现场。我向警方解释了当时的情况，警方于是把阿米娜带到十五碑的警局。

21. 我乘一辆德士，跟随警车前往十五碑警局。我叫阿都拉萨和他的律师迪仁（Dirren）向警方投报此事，但被他们拒绝。

22. 当我在十五碑警局时，阿米娜的私家侦探洪忠明先生（Mr.Ang）也随后抵步，我们相互讨论此事。他们要我向阿都拉萨提出一些要求，包括支付他们50万美金和3张飞往蒙古的机票，这显然是在巴黎交易中，至今还欠阿米娜的佣金。

23. 阿米娜在这阶段已经冷静下来了。十五碑警局的一名女警劝告我离开该地，并友善地解决此事。

24. 我接着把阿米娜的要求，转告了阿都拉萨，并告诉他，我对于他们刚才没有支持我报警一事，感到失望。我们讨论良久，我向他提出我希望退出这份工作。

纳吉说阿米娜愿意进行肛交

25. 在讨论过程中，阿都拉萨为了说服我继续留下，告诉了我以下这些事情：

25.1 他是在新加坡的一个钻石展上，通过拿督斯里纳吉的介绍，认识了阿米娜。

25.2 拿督斯里纳吉告诉阿都拉萨，他曾跟阿米娜发生过性关系，而后者也愿意进行肛交。

25.3 拿督斯里纳吉要求阿都拉萨好好照顾阿米娜，因为他现在已贵为副首相，他不希望再被阿米娜所骚扰。

25.4 拿督斯里纳吉、阿都拉萨和阿米娜3人，曾经在巴黎共进晚餐。

25.5 阿米娜要阿都拉萨支付她一笔钱。阿米娜认为，她有权获得一笔50万美元的款项，作为她在巴黎协助完成一项潜水艇交易的佣金。

26 在2006年10月19日，我到阿都拉萨位于白沙罗高原的住家，执行我的夜班工作。我如常地把我的车子泊在屋外。我看到那里有一辆黄色的普腾将相（Proton Perdana）德士，车上有3名女人，其中一人是阿米娜。那辆德士U转后，在屋前停下，那些女人把车窗绞下，并祝我“屠妖节快乐”。然后，那辆德士驶离该地。

27 大概20分钟后，那辆德士驶返，但车上只剩下阿米娜1人。她步出德士后，走过来向我谈话。我发送了一则手机短讯给阿都拉萨，通知他“阿米娜在这里”。我过后收到阿都拉萨的回复短讯，他指示我“拖着她，直到我的人马到达为止”。

28 在我和阿米娜的谈话中，她告诉了我以下事情：

28.1 她是在新加坡和拿督斯里纳吉一起时，认识了阿都拉萨。

28.2 她曾经跟阿都拉萨和拿督斯里纳吉，在巴黎共进晚餐。

28.3 她曾被承诺，可获得一笔总值50万美元的佣金，作为在巴黎完成一项潜水艇交易的酬劳。

28.4 阿都拉萨曾经在蒙古买了一所房子给她，不过她的兄弟后来把房子重贷（refinance）出去，她需要一笔钱来赎回房子。

28.5 她的母亲患病，她需要钱来支付母亲的治疗费用。

阿米娜曾在韩国和拉萨结婚

28.6 她曾在韩国和阿都拉萨结婚，因为她的母亲是一名韩国人，而父亲则是蒙古人和中国人所生的混血儿。

28.7 她询问我，如果我不允许她会见阿都拉萨，是否能代为安排，让她会见拿督斯里纳吉。

29. 我跟阿米娜谈了大概15分钟，过后一辆红色的短尾普腾赛佳（Proton Aeroback）抵达该地，车上载有1名妇女和2名男子。我现在知道这名女子就是
伍长罗哈妮扎罗斯兰（Rohaniza），而两名男子则是阿兹拉（Azilah Hadri）和西鲁（Sirul Azahar）。他们当时都身穿便服。阿兹拉当时朝我走来，而另两人则呆在车内。

30. 阿兹拉问我，那名女子是否就是阿米娜。我回答说“是的”。过后阿兹拉就走开了，并用手机拨打了几通电话。10分钟后，另一辆车子，一辆蓝色的普腾赛佳缓缓驶抵。该辆车由1名马来男子所驾驶，司机座的窗口已经绞下，而那名司机正望着我们。

31. 阿兹拉告诉我，他们将会带走阿米娜。我通知阿米娜，他们要逮捕她。另外两人然后离开红色的普腾汽车，交换座位，让一巡伍长罗哈妮查和阿米娜坐到后面，而他们俩则坐在前面。他们开车离开，而这次是我最后一次见到阿米娜了。

32. 这一切发生的时候，阿都拉萨并不在家。

33. 2006年10月19日以后，从晚上7时至翌日早上8时，我继续在阿都拉萨坐落于白沙罗高原家里工作，因为他继续收到一名称为“艾米”（Amy）女子的恐吓短讯。艾米显然是“阿米娜”在蒙古的表妹。

34. 2006年10月20日，阿米娜的两名女性朋友出现在阿都拉萨的家里，询问阿米娜的下落。我告诉她们，她已经在之前一晚被逮捕了。

35. 过了几个晚上后，这两名蒙古女子、洪忠明和另一名称为“艾米”的蒙古女子出现在阿都拉萨巴金达的家里要找阿米娜，他们相信阿米娜被囚禁在那里。

36. 这引起了一阵骚动，我因此报警。警方不久后开着一辆警车抵达。另外一辆警车随后也到来，他是来自金马警局的警官，负责调查这些蒙古女子之一，我相信是艾米，所投报的失踪人口案。

37. 我打电话给当时在家里的阿都拉萨，通知他前门所发生的状况。他后来致电给慕沙沙菲里副警监（Musa Safri），然后再回电给我，告诉我慕沙沙菲里将打电话到手机，并且要我将手机交给该名来自金马警局的警官。

38. 我之后就在我的手机接到了慕沙沙菲里打来的电话，我将手机交予该名来自金马警局的警官。他们的对话大约有3至4分钟，之后探员叫那些女子离开，并且在明天去找他。

39. 2006年10月24日，或者前后，阿都拉萨指示我陪同他到十五碑警察局。他接到劝告，针对这些蒙古女郎的骚扰向警方报案。

40. 在此之前，艾米曾传短讯给我，跟我说她将跟蒙古领事一起到泰国，针对阿米娜的失踪进行报警。显然她也将同样的短讯传给了阿都拉萨。这是为何他告诉我，他受人劝告去报警。

41. 阿都拉萨告诉我，慕沙沙菲里副警监指示他去找一个依德里斯（Idris）副警监，他是十五碑警局的刑事部主任。依德里斯后来又要他去找东尼（Tonny）助理警监。

42. 当阿都拉萨在十五碑警局，当着东尼助理警监的面前完成报案后，后者要求他录取口供，不过阿都拉萨拒绝了，因为他要出国。不过，他答应准备一份书面口供，并且将一个拇指碟（thumb drive）交给东尼助理警监。根据东尼助理警监给我的说法，我知道阿都拉萨没有这样做。

43. 不过，东尼助理警监在隔天反要求我提供口供，而我也这样做了。

44. 我在2006年10月26日停止跟阿都拉萨打工，而在同一天，阿都拉萨一个人离国前往香港。

45. 2006年11月中，我接到东尼助理警监的电话，他从汉都亚路（Jalan Hang Tuah）的警察总部打来，要求我为阿米娜案去见他一下。当我抵达那里，我马上在刑事法令第S.506非法恐吓条款的罪名下被逮捕。

46. 我随后被关到牢房内，准备扣押5天。在第3天，我获得保释。

47. 2006年11月底，警察总部的D9部门派探员来到我家，并且将我押送警察总部。当我抵达时，我被告知我已经在刑事法令第S.302谋杀条款的指控下被捕。我被关到牢房内，准备扣押7天。

48. 我被转送到武吉啊曼，我在那里接受盘问，他们问我关于一则阿都拉萨在2006年10月19日达传给我的短讯。这则短讯写着“拖延她，直到我的人抵达为止”。他们显然从阿都拉萨的手机拿到这则短讯。

有关纳吉的口供详情全被剔除

49. 他们接着连续7天，每天从早上8时半至下午6时不断地录取我的口供。我告诉他们我所知道的一切，包括阿都拉萨巴金达和阿米娜所告诉我的一切，关于他们跟拿督斯里纳吉（Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak）的关系。不过，当我准备签署我的口供书的时候，这些详情已经被剔除。

50. 我在莎亚南高庭对阿兹拉、西鲁和阿都拉萨巴金达的审讯中提供了证据。检控官没有问我关于阿米娜跟拿督斯里纳吉的关系，或者我从慕沙沙菲里副警監所接到的电话，而我相信，他是拿督斯里纳吉和／或他太太的随扈（aide-de-camp）。

51. 在阿都拉萨被捕当天，在凌晨6时30分时，我与阿都拉萨，身处其律师的办公室，阿都拉萨告诉我们，在前一日傍晚，他已经向纳吉发了一则短讯，因为他不相信他将会被逮捕，但是却并未接获任何回应。

52. 过了不久，在早上7时30分，阿都拉萨收到纳吉的短讯，向我和其律师出示有关短讯。有关短讯写着，“我在今早11时见过总警长，问题将会被解决...保持冷静”。

53. 据我所知，阿都拉萨於同一天早上，在其位于安邦路的天然胶大厦被捕。

54. 这份法定宣誓书的目的是：

54.1 针对有关当局的阿旦杜亚命案的调查手法表示我的不满。

54.2 提醒有关当局，除了这三名被告之外，极有可能还有其他的人涉及蒙古女郎命案。

54,3 敦促有关当局马上重新开启针对蒙古女郎命案的调查，以便任何新的证据能够提呈上庭。

54.4 强调我作为一名曾经服务长达17年的马来西亚皇家警察成员，我很肯定，若之前没接获来自上司明确的指示，任何一名警员都不会对一个人的头部开枪或炸毁他们的身体。

54.5 我也关注，若在阿旦杜亚案中被提控谋杀的被告阿兹拉及西鲁不必自辩论的话，他们将不必宣誓或供出究竟是从何接获命令，以及究竟是谁下达命令给他们。

55. 我是根据1960年宣誓法令作出宣誓，并相信这份宣誓书的内容是真实的。

巴拉苏巴马廉 2008年7月1日

巴拉苏巴马廉宣誓书英文原文：

STATUTORY DECLARATION

I, Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal ... do solemly and sincerely declare as follows:

1. I have been a police officer with the Royal Malaysian Police Force, having joined as a constable in 1981 attached to the police field force. I was then promoted to the rank of lance corporal and finally resigned from the police force in 1998 when I was with the Special Branch.

2. I have been working as a freelance private investigator since I left the police force.

3. Sometime in June or July 2006, I was employed by Abdul Razak Baginda for a period of 10 days to look after him at his office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang between the hours of 8am to 5pm each working day as apparently he was experiencing disturbances from a third party.

4. I resigned from this job after 2? days as I was not receiving any proper instructions.

5. I was however re-employed by Abdul Razak Baginda on the Oct 5, 2006 as he had apparently received a harassing phone call from a Chinese man calling himself ASP Tan who had threatened him to pay his debts. I later found out this gentleman was in fact a private investigator called Ang who was employed by a Mongolian woman called Altantuya Shaaribuu.

6. Abdul Razak Baginda was concerned that a person by the name of Altantuya Shaaribuu, a Mongolian woman, was behind this threat and that she would be arriving in Malaysia very soon to try and contact him.

7. Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that he was concerned by this as he had been advised that Altantuya Shaaribuu had been given some powers by a Mongolian ‘bomoh’ and that he could never look her in the face because of this.

8. When I enquired as to who this Mongolian woman was, Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that she was a friend of his who had been introduced to him by a VIP and who asked him to look after her financially.

9. I advised him to lodge a police report concerning the threatening phone call he had received from the Chinese man known as ASP Tan but he refused to do so as he informed me there were some high-profile people involved.

10. Abdul Razak Baginda further told me that Altantuya Shaaribuu was a great liar and good in convincing people. She was supposed to have been very demanding financially and that he had even financed a property for her in Mongolia.

11. Abdul Razak Baginda then let me listen to some voice messages on his handphone asking him to pay what was due otherwise he would be harmed and his daughter harassed.

12. I was therefore supposed to protect his daughter Rowena as well.

13. On Oct 9, 2006 I received a phone call from Abdul Razak Baginda at about 9.30am informing me that Altantuya was in his office and he wanted me there immediately. As I was in the midst of a surveillance, I sent my assistant Suras to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office and I followed a little later. Suras managed to control the situation and had persuaded Altantuya and her two friends to leave the premises. However Altantuya left a note written on some Hotel Malaya notepaper, in English, asking Abdul Razak Baginda to call her on her handphone (number given) and wrote down her room number as well.

14. Altantuya had introduced herself to Suras as ‘Aminah’ and had informed Suras she was there to see her boyfriend Abdul Razak Baginda.

15. These three Mongolian girls however returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang again, the next day at about 12 noon. They did not enter the building but again informed Suras that they wanted to meet Aminah’s boyfriend, Abdul Razak Baginda.

16. On Oct 11, 2006, Aminah returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office on her own and gave me a note to pass to him, which I did. Abdul Razak Baginda showed me the note which basically asked him to call her urgently.

17. I suggested to Abdul Razak Baginda that perhaps it may be wise to arrange for Aminah to be arrested if she harassed him further, but he declined as he felt she would have to return to Mongolia as soon as her cash ran out.

18. In the meantime, I had arranged for Suras to perform surveillance on Hotel Malaya to monitor the movements of these three Mongolian girls, but they recognised him. Apparently they become friends with Suras after that and he ended up spending a few nights in their hotel room.

19. When Abdul Razak Baginda discovered Suras was becoming close to Aminah he asked me to pull him out from Hotel Malaya.

20. On the Oct 14, 2006, Aminah turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house in Damansara Heights when I was not there. Abdul Razak Baginda called me on my handphone to inform me of this so I rushed back to his house. As I arrived, I noticed Aminah outside the front gates shouting “Razak, bastard, come out from the house”. I tried to calm her down but couldn’t, so I called the police who arrived in two patrol cars. I explained the situation to the police, who took her away to the Brickfields police station.

21. I followed the patrol cars to Brickfields police station in a taxi. I called Abdul Razak Baginda and his lawyer Dirren to lodge a police report but they refused.

22. When I was at the Brickfields police station, Aminah’s own private investigator, one Mr Ang arrived and we had a discussion. I was told to deliver a demand to Abdul Razak Baginda for US$500,000 and three tickets to Mongolia, apparently as commission owed to Aminah from a deal in Paris.

23. As Aminah had calmed down at this stage, a policewoman at the Brickfields police station advised me to leave and settle the matter amicably.

24. I duly informed Abdul Razak Baginda of the demands Aminah had made and told him I was disappointed that no one wanted to back me up in lodging a police report. We had a long discussion about the situation when I expressed a desire to pull out of this assignment.

25. During this discussion and in an attempt to persuade me to continue my employment with him, Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that:

1) He had been introduced to Aminah by Najib Razak at a diamond exhibition in Singapore.

2) Najib Razak informed Abdul Razak Baginda that he had a sexual relationship with Aminah and that she was susceptible to anal intercourse.

3) Najib Razak wanted Abdul Razak Baginda to look after Aminah as he did not want her to harass him since he was now the deputy prime minister.

4) Najib Razak, Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had all been together at a dinner in Paris.

5) Aminah wanted money from him as she felt she was entitled to a US$500,000 commission on a submarine deal she assisted with in Paris.

26. On Oct 19, 2006, I arrived at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house in Damansara Heights to begin my night duty. I had parked my car outside as usual. I saw a yellow Proton Perdana taxi pass by with three ladies inside, one of whom was Aminah. The taxi did a U-turn and stopped in front of the house where these ladies rolled down the window and wished me ‘Happy Deepavali’. The taxi then left.

27. About 20 minutes later the taxi returned with only Aminah in it. She got out of the taxi and walked towards me and started talking to me. I sent an SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda informing him “Aminah was here”. I received an SMS from Razak instructing me “to delay her until my man comes”.

28. Whist I was talking to Aminah, she informed me of the following:

1) That she met Abdul Razak Baginda in Singapore with Najib Razak.
2) That she had also met Abdul Razak Baginda and Najib Razak at a dinner in Paris.

3) That she was promised a sum of US$500,000.00 as commission for assisting in a submarine deal in Paris.

4) That Abdul Razak Baginda had bought her a house in Mongolia but her brother had refinanced it and she needed money to redeem it.

5) That her mother was ill and she needed money to pay for her treatment.

6) That Abdul Razak Baginda had married her in Korea as her mother is Korean whilst her father was a Mongolian/Chinese mix.

7) That if I wouldn’t allow her to see Abdul Razak Baginda, would I be able to arrange for her to see Najib Razak.

29. After talking to Aminah for about 15 minutes, a red Proton Aeroback arrived with a woman and two men. I now know the woman to be lance corporal Rohaniza and the men, Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azahar. They were all in plainclothes. Azilah walked towards me while the other two stayed in the car.

30. Azilah asked me whether the woman was Aminah and I said “Yes”. He then walked off and made a few calls on his handphone. After 10 minutes another vehicle, a blue Proton Saga, driven by a Malay man, passed by slowly. The drivers window had been wound down and the driver was looking at us.

31. Azilah then informed me they would be taking Aminah away. I informed Aminah they were arresting her. The other two persons then got out of the red Proton and exchanged seats so that lance corporal Rohaniza and Aminah were in the back while the two men were in the front. They drove off and that is the last I ever saw of Aminah.

32. Abdul Razak Baginda was not at home when all this occurred.

33. After Oct 19, 2006, I continued to work for Abdul Razak Baginda at his house in Damansara Heights from 7pm to 8am the next morning, as he had been receiving threatening text messages from a woman called ‘Amy’ who was apparently ‘Aminah’s’ cousin in Mongolia.

34. On the night of Oct 20, 2006, both of Aminah’s girlfriends turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house enquiring where Aminah was. I informed them she had been arrested the night before.

35. A couple of nights later, these two Mongolian girls, Mr Ang and another Mongolian girl called ‘Amy’ turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house looking for Aminah as they appeared to be convinced she was being held in the house.

36. A commotion began so I called the police who arrived shortly thereafter in a patrol car. Another patrol car arrived a short while later in which was the investigating officer from the Dang Wangi police station who was in charge of the missing persons report lodged by one of the Mongolians girls, I believe was Amy.

37. I called Abdul Razak Baginda who was at home to inform him of the events taking place at his front gate. He then called DSP Musa Safri and called me back informing me that Musa Safri would be calling handphone and I was to pass the phone to the inspector from Dang Wangi police station.

38. I then received a call on my handphone from Musa Safri and duly handed the phone to the Dang Wangi inspector. The conversation lasted 3-4 minutes after which he told the girls to disperse and to go to see him the next day.

39. On or about Oct 24, 2006, Abdul Razak Baginda instructed me to accompany him to the Brickfields police station as he had been advised to lodge a police report about the harassment he was receiving from these Mongolian girls.

40. Before this, Amy had sent me an SMS informing me she was going to Thailand to lodge a report with the Mongolian consulate there regarding Aminah’s disappearance. Apparently she had sent the same SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda. This is why he told me he had been advised to lodge a police report.

41. Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that DPS Musa Safri had introduced him to one DSP Idris, the head of the criminal division, Brickfields police station, and that Idris had referred him to ASP Tonny.

42. When Abdul Razak Baginda had lodged his police report at Brickfields police station, in front of ASP Tonny, he was asked to make a statement but he refused as he said he was leaving for overseas. He did however promise to prepare a statement and hand ASP Tonny a thumbdrive. I know that this was not done as ASP Tonny told me.

43. However ASP Tonny asked me the next day to provide my statement instead and so I did.

44. I stopped working for Abdul Razak Baginda on Oct 26, 2006 as this was the day he left for Hong Kong on his own.

45. In mid-November 2006, I received a phone call from ASP Tonny from the IPK Jalan Hang Tuah asking me to see him regarding Aminah’s case. When I arrived there I was immediately arrested under Section 506 of the Penal Code for criminal intimidation.

46. I was then placed in the lock up and remanded for five days. On the third day, I was released on police bail.

47. At the end of November 2006, the D9 department of the IPK sent a detective to my house to escort me to the IPK Jalan Hang Tuah. When I arrived, I was told I was being arrested under Section 302 of the Penal Code for murder. I was put in the lock up and remanded for seven days.

48. I was transported to Bukit Aman where I was interrogated and questioned about an SMS I had received from Abdul Razak Baginda on Oct 19, 2006 which read “delay her until my man arrives”. They had apparently retrieved this message from Abdul Razak Baginda’s handphone.

49. They then proceeded to record my statement from 8.30 am to 6pm everyday for seven consecutive days. I told them all I knew including everything Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had told me about their relationships with Najib Razak but when I came to sign my statement, these details had been left out.

50. I have given evidence in the trial of Azilah, Sirul and Abdul Razak Baginda at the Shah Alam High Court. The prosecutor did not ask me any questions in respect of Aminah’s relationship with Najib Razak or of the phone call I received from DSP Musa Safri, whom I believe was the ADC for Najib Razak and/or his wife.

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”.

53. I have been made to understand that Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested the same morning at his office in the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang.

54. The purpose of this Statutory declaration is to:

1) State my disappointment at the standard of investigations conducted by the authorities into the circumstances surrounding the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu.

2) Bring to the notice of the relevant authorities the strong possibility that there are individuals other than the three accused who must have played a role in the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu.

3) Persuade the relevant authorities to reopen their investigations into this case immediately so that any fresh evidence may be presented to the court prior to submissions at the end of the prosecutions case.

4) Emphasise the fact that having been a member of the Royal Malaysian Police Force for 17 years, I am absolutely certain no police officer would shoot someone in the head and blow up their body without receiving specific instructions from their superiors first.

5) Express my concern that should the defence not be called in the said murder trial, the accused, Azilah and Sirul will not have to swear on oath and testify as to the instructions they received and from whom they were given.

55. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declaration Act 1960.

Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal
July 1, 2008