Salleh Said Keruak
Aljazeera just came out with a documentary that is a rehash of an old story and presented as if it is a current development. Why Aljazeera wants to spin this distortion, some of which are merely lies and speculation, leads to a suspicion that an ulterior motive may be the reason.
Everything featured in that documentary is based on hearsay and not based on any tangible evidence. They even re-enacted various scenes with voiceovers, which give an impression that this is evidence whereas the scenes were actually played by actors. How they concluded that these scenes are an adaption of what really happened is not explained. In fact, Aljazeera admits that the scenes are re-enactments.
Aljazeera featured private investigator Bala’s so-called testimony, which he changed so many times. Aljazeera failed to also mention that the French police recorded Bala’s testimony in Paris but they found his testimony inconsistent and unreliable that they decided not to include it in their findings.
The focus of the Aljazeera story is that Altantuya was the interpreter for the submarines contract, something that happened even before she came onto the scene. The French police in its report said that Altantuya never entered France during that period, and neither did Razak Baginda or the Prime Minister. This Aljazeera did not mention.
Statements recorded by the French police confirm that the French submarine supplier never met Altantuya or know about her. In fact, there was no need for a French-speaking interpreter since all negotiations were done in Malaysia and not in France and everyone spoke English, the language used in the submarine negotiations. And the most important point of all is that the submarine deal was between the French and Malaysian governments and not between individuals.
The Prime Minister has denied ever meeting Altantuya or even knowing her. But the Aljazeera report is based on Bala’s statement implicating the Prime Minister, which even the French police who investigated this allegation had said was unreliable and inconsistent testimony.
This is a classic case of facts being weaved with fiction, with more fiction than facts, and stories that had been floating around and which were never substantiated being the basis of the Aljazeera report. I can only classify this Aljazeera report as naughty and malicious with a sensational story being presented as the truth.