Fed up of sodomy "Govt may cut fuel price" - Malaysiakini

Malaysiakini reports today that Govt may cut fuel price. We Malaysians are simply fed up with all this sodomy stuffs. We are getting annoyed for being treated like fools and it’s a challenge for the Malaysians’ intellect to hear and read nonsense news and views day in and day out.

Today, at the end of the month of July, we are glad to hear something nice i.e. that fuel price may come down. How nice if that happens and we Malaysians should pray that the Government and Opposition work towards the betterment of Malaysians at large.

DNA & SHA (Syed Hamid Albar). Police mull court action - Malaysiakini

Malaysiakini reported today that the police is considering court action to compel anwar to give DNA. It is also reported in Malaysiakini that Anwar will only agree if there is a court order. Lets see what NST says:

Question : "What is Anwar Afraid of?"


http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Friday/Frontpage/2296707/Article/index_html

Answer : Anwar fears tampering of DNA.

De facto Parti Keadilan Rakyat leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim refused to give his blood sample for DNA test for fear that the evidence would be tampered with to implicate him in the sodomy allegation.

"Why should I give my blood sample when police have refused to give my lawyers a copy of the police report lodged against me?" ask Anwar.
http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Friday/Frontpage/2296708/Article/index_html

Conclusion : found in last para of lawyers' opinion

Lawyer Haresh Mahadevan, meanwhile, said DNA evidence alone was not conclusive to prove that a person was involved in a crime."It is merely corroborative evidence to support the prosecution's case," he said, adding that it was possible to plant samples like hair, sweat particles or blood of a person at the crime scene to implicate him or her.

http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Friday/Frontpage/2296712/Article/index_html

Road-blocking BN's popularity - Malaysiakini

Do the UMNO-BN Government really care about public opinion? Do they still think that Malaysians are bunch of fools??? Malaysiakini should conducts polls on road blocks.

Anwar's Arrest at 12.55pm (Appt at 2.00pm)

Note the policemen who are happily chatting under the umbrella while we the rakyat suffer the traffic jam, wastage of time and petrol etc etc. This is what happens all over the roadblocks. The Policemen are simply there to cause inconvenience. Whose security these guys are talking about? And our brilliant PM says Roadblocks needed to keep order see here .. http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/7/15/nation/21822758&sec=nation

Any body language expert?

Under Duress on 03/07/08?

Or under duress on 04/07/08?

Body language expert should be able to give hints at which stage the PI were under duress.
Pics from The Star & Bernama.

Law Lesson - Statutory Declaration

Balasubramaniam has made an about turn and released a new statutory declaration. From media reports, it appears that he claims that those parts of his original Statutory Declaration that pertained to the Deputy Prime Minister were made under duress.

He has not been forthcoming with particulars of his purported duress. This is unfortunate as it raises many questions that the Malaysian public is deserving of answers to. As I understand it, the inflicting of duress in law requires the subjecting of a person to the kind of treatment that would leave that person with no doubt that he or someone close to him would be in grave danger, life and limb, unless that person cooperated with the person inflicting duress.

Is Balasubramaniam saying that representatives of Keadilan inflicted duress or that his previous lawyer did? We cannot overlook the statement given by Anwar Ibrahim at the same press conference yesterday in he explained how Balasubramaniam had come to make the Statutory Declaration. From this perspective, the accusation of duress is not a trivial one as it carries grave implications and consequences.

In the same vein, if in fact the police were in contact with Balasubramaniam yesterday, after the press conference at which he released his original (and now retracted) Statutory Declaration as the media suggests, the police should also make it clear to the rakyat what it is that transpired, if only to clear up any doubt as to the circumstances in which Balasubramaniam retracted his original statement.

I say this because the original Statutory Declaration was itself of grave importance and carried with serious implications. I have noted that some writers have been quick to question or dismiss the value of the original Statutory Declaration for it allegedly being hearsay, or put another way, containing only second hand information not directly within the knowledge of Balasubramaniam.

I do not share this view. Allow me to explain why.

The law requires direct evidence of a fact. Second-hand knowledge is considered to be unreliable. However it does not follow that ‘hearsay’ evidence is not admissible or irrelevant in all cases. Evidence is multi-faceted and is never merely proof of one fact. Considered from different angles, a single piece of evidence may tell more than one story.

For example, A tells B that A had stolen some money. B then tells C. C’s evidence of the conversation is not admissible as an admission by A or as proof of theft. Put another way, A could not be convicted purely on the say so of C. Evidence of A having committed the theft would have to be put before the court, in one form or the other. This is the essence of the hearsay rule.

However, this does not mean that the fact of B telling C is of no relevance. The fact is that A and B had that conversation and though C’s evidence may not be able to establish the truth of what was told to him by B, it can establish that such a conversation took place. The law permits this. If admitted, such evidence could be considered as ‘circumstantial evidence’.

Seen in this light, it is clear that the original Statutory Declaration was of great significance. In it Balasubramaniam categorically stated that he gave information to the police about the conversations he had had with Razak Baginda and Altantuya AND that such information was excluded from his statement AND that the Prosecution did not ask him any questions about this aspect of the information he gave to the police. These pieces of evidence were not hearsay as they were matters directly within the knowledge of Balasubramaniam. They were also manifestly relevant.

Additionally, for the reasons explained above, the fact of the conversations between Balasubramaniam and Razak Baginda and Altantuya respectively were also of relevance for equally suggesting an alternative or additional line of enquiry that the police ought to have looked into but apparently did not.

The about-turn and the possible, though as yet uncertain, involvement of the police do not do any good for the already seriously undermined confidence of the rakyat in the justice system.We deserve better.

visit : malikimtiaz.blogspot.com

2nd Statutory Declaration

I, Balakrishnan a/l Perumal (NRIC 600928-08-6235) a Malaysian citizen of full age and residing at No 32, xxxxxxx, Selangor Darul Ehsan do solemnly and sincerely declare as follows:

1. I have been a police officer with the Royal Malaysian Police Force having joined as constable in 1981. I was subsequently promoted to the rank of Lance Corporal and finally resigned from the Royal Malaysian Police Force in 1998.

2. I currently work as a freelance Private Investigator.

3. I wish to refer to the Statutory Declaration I affirmed on 1st July 2008. I refer specifically to paragraphs 8, 25, 28, 49 and 50 to 52, wherein I have stated inter-alia that:

(a) Razak Baginda informed me that he was introduced to Altantuya Shaaribu by a VIP;

(b) Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak informed Abdul Razak Baginda that he had a sexual relationship with Altantuya Shaaribu and that she was susceptible to anal intercourse;

(c) Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak instructed Razak Baginda to look after Altantuya Shaaribu as he did not want her to harass him since he was the Deputy Prime Minister;

(d) Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, Abdul Razak Baginda and Altantuya Shaaribu had met and all been together at a dinner in Paris;

(e) Altantuya Shaaribu wanted money in the sum of USD$500,000 as a commission for a submarine deal she assisted with in Paris;

(f) Altantuya Shaaribu met Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak in Singapore;

(g) Altantuya Shaaribu wanted to arrange to see Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak;

(h) I told the police about the relationship between Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and Altantuya Shaaribu but when it came to sign my statement, this detail was left out;

(i) The prosecutor during the course of the trial in the High Court of Shah Alam did not ask me any question in respect of Altantuya Shaaribu's purported relationship with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak or of a phone call I received from one DSP Musa Safri, whom I believe was the ADC to Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and/or his wife;

(j) Razak Baginda informed me that he had sent Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak an SMS the evening before be was arrested but did not receive a response; and

(k) Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak sent an SMS to Razak Baginda on the day of his arrest to the effect that he was going to see the IGP that day and that the matter should be resolved and for Razak Baginda to remain calm.

4. I wish to retract alol the statements that I have made in paragraphs 8, 25, 28, 49, and 50 to 52 of my Statutory Declaration dated 1st July 2008. The statements contained in paragraphs 8, 25, 28, 49 and 50 to 52 of my Statutory Declaration dated 1st July 2008 are inaccurate and not the truth. I wish to expressly state that:

(a) At no material time did Razak Baginda inform me that he was introduced to Altantuya Shaaribu by a VIP;

(b) At no material time did Razak Baginda inform me that Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak had a sexual relationship with Altantuya Shaaribu and that she was susceptible to anal intercourse;

(c) At no material time did Razak Baginda inform me that Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak to look after Altantuya Shaaribu as he did not want her to harass him since he was the Deputy Prime Minister;

(d) At no material time did Razak Baginda or/and Altantuya Shaaribu inform me that Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, Abdul Razak Baginda and Altantuya Shaaribu had met and all been together at a dinner in Paris;

(e) At no material time did Altantuya Shaaribu inform me that she wanted money in the sum of USD$500,000 as a commission for a submarine deal she assisted with in Paris;

(f) At no time whatsoever did Razak Baginda or/and Altantuya Shaaribu inform me that met Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak in Singapore;

(g) At no time whatsoever did Altantuya Shaaribu inform me that she wanted me to arrange to see Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak;

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

(i) At no time did Razak Baginda infor me that he had Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak an SMS the evening before he was arrested; and

(k) 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 that day and that the matter should be resolved and for Razak Baginda to remain calm.In addition, I wish to retract the entire contents of my Statutory Declaration dated 1st July 2008. I was compelled to affirm the said Statutory Declaration dated 1st July 2008 under duress.

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

Subscribed and solemnly declared by the abovenamed )BALASUBRAMANIAM a/l PERUMAL )at Kuala Lumpur )in the State of W. Persekutuan )this 4th day of July 2008 )

unseen hands at work?

What the hell is happening??

Political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda's private investigator P. Balasubramaniam on Friday retracted part of his statutory declaration which he made less than 24 hours ago. In his new statutory declaration he says that he 'was compelled to affirm the said statutory declaration under duress'.

Anwar vs Najib

Interesting development and times in Malaysian Politics.

STATUTORY DECLARATION
I, Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal (NRIC NO: xxxxxx-xx-6235) a Malaysian Citizen of full age and residing at xxxxx, Selangor do solemly and sincerely declare as follows :-

1. I have been a police officer with the Royal Malaysian Police Force having jointed 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 free lance 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 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m each working day as apparently he was experiencing disturbances from a third party.

4. I resigned from this job after 2 ½ days as I was not receiving any proper instructions.

5. I was however re-employed by Abdul Razak Baginda on the 05-10-2006 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 the 09.10.2006 I received a phone call from Abdul Razak Baginda at about 9.30 a.m. 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 note paper, 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 3 Mongolian girls however returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang again, the next day at about 12.00 noon. They did not enter the building but again informed Suras that they wanted to meet Aminah’s boyfriend, Abdul Razak Baginda.

16. On the 11.10.2006, 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 3 Mongolian girls, but they recognized 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 14.10.2006, 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 2 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 USD$500,000.00 and 3 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 :-

25.1 He had been introduced to Aminah by Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at a diamond exhibition in Singapore.

25.2 Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak informed Abdul Razak Baginda that he had a sexual relationship with Aminah and that she was susceptible to anal intercourse.

25.3 Datuk Seri Najib Tun 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.

25.4 Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had all been together at a dinner in Paris.

25.5 Aminah wanted money from him as she felt she was entitled to a USD$500,000.00 commission on a submarine deal she assisted with in Paris.

26. On the 19.10.2006, 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 3 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 :-

28.1 That she met Abdul Razak Baginda in Singapore with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

28.2 That she had also met Abdul Razak Baginda and Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at a dinner in Paris.

28.3 That she was promised a sum of USD$500,000.00 as commission for assisting in a Submarine deal in Paris.

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

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

28.6That Abdul Razak Baginda had married her in Korea as her mother is Korean whilst her father was a Mongolian/Chinese mix.

28.7 That if I wouldn’t allow her to see Abdul Razak Baginda, would I be able to arrange for her to see Datuk Seri Najib Tun 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 plain clothes. 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 the 19.10.2006, I continued to work for Abdul Razak Baginda at his house in Damansara Heights from 7.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. 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 the 20.10.2006, both of Aminah’s girl friends 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 the 24.10.2006, 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 thumb drive. 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 the 26.10.2006 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 S.506 of the Penal Code for Criminal intimidation.

46. I was then placed in the lock up and remanded for 5 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 S.302 of the Penal Code for murder. I was put in the lock up and remanded for 7 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 the 19.10.2006 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 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. everyday for 7 consecutive days. I told them all I knew including everything Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had told me about their relationships with Datuk Seri Najib Tun 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 Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak or of the phone call I received from DSP Musa Safri, whom I believe was the ADC for Datuk Seri Najib Razak and/or his wife.

51. On the day Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested, I was with him at his lawyers office at 6.30 a.m. Abdul Razak Baginda informed us that he had sent Datuk Seri Najib Tun 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 7.30 a.m., Abdul Razak Baginda received an SMS from Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and showed, this message to both myself and his lawyer. This message read as follows :- ” I am seeing IGP at 11.00 a.m. 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 :-

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

54.2 Bring to the notice of the relevant authorities the strong possibility that there are individuals other than the 3 accused who must have played a role in the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu.

54.3 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.

54.4 Emphasize 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.

54.5. 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.

SUBCRIBED and solemnly )
declared by the abovenamed )
Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal ]
this day of 2008 )Before me,
………………………………….Commissioner for OathKuala Lumpur